CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd.

11 Taxmann.com 417High Court2011#6199 most cited

What is CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. authority for?

A UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) is considered an integral part of a computer system, entitling it to depreciation at the higher rate applicable to computers, typically 60%.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. · UPS depreciation · computer accessories depreciation · 60% depreciation · plant and machinery · part of computer system · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

56 DTR 397

Judgments citing CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd.

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2617/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner of No.36A, 2nd Phase, Income-tax, Circle 12(5) v. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN : AAACW1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent by : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM T…

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2616/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner of No.36A, 2nd Phase, Income-tax, Circle 12(5) v. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN : AAACW1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent by : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM T…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1473/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1083, 1084 & 1085/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13 M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Megh Towers, 1-3rd Floor, Old No. 307, Vs. Income Tax, New No. 165, Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Circle 2(1), Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. Chennai. [PAN:AAACD1707C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) I.T.A. Nos…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1472/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1083, 1084 & 1085/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13 M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Megh Towers, 1-3rd Floor, Old No. 307, Vs. Income Tax, New No. 165, Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Circle 2(1), Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. Chennai. [PAN:AAACD1707C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) I.T.A. Nos…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1085/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1083, 1084 & 1085/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13 M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Megh Towers, 1-3rd Floor, Old No. 307, Vs. Income Tax, New No. 165, Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Circle 2(1), Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. Chennai. [PAN:AAACD1707C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) I.T.A. Nos…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1083, 1084 & 1085/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13 M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Megh Towers, 1-3rd Floor, Old No. 307, Vs. Income Tax, New No. 165, Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Circle 2(1), Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. Chennai. [PAN:AAACD1707C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) I.T.A. Nos…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1083/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1083, 1084 & 1085/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13 M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Megh Towers, 1-3rd Floor, Old No. 307, Vs. Income Tax, New No. 165, Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Circle 2(1), Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. Chennai. [PAN:AAACD1707C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) I.T.A. Nos…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 6239/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit (Ltu), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Bansal, CA
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT (LTU), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi. PAN : AAACI2270H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.130/Del/2014 (In ITA No.5756/Del/2013) Assessment Year : 2007-08 International Tractors Ltd., DCIT (LTU), Sonalika House, New Delhi. 283, AGCR Enclave, Vs. Karkardooma, Delhi. PAN : AAACI2270H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2008-09 DCIT (LTU), International Tractors…

DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 5756/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit (Ltu), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Bansal, CA
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT (LTU), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi. PAN : AAACI2270H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.130/Del/2014 (In ITA No.5756/Del/2013) Assessment Year : 2007-08 International Tractors Ltd., DCIT (LTU), Sonalika House, New Delhi. 283, AGCR Enclave, Vs. Karkardooma, Delhi. PAN : AAACI2270H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2008-09 DCIT (LTU), International Tractors…

DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai vs. Wheels India Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2198/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 35Section 43B

…3-: towards depreciation on UPS, the CIT(A) following this tribunal decision in ITA No 396/Mds/2014 dated 26.09.2014 in the assessee’s case for assessment year 2010-11 and the Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd 56 DTR 397 (Del), allowed the assessee’s plea holding that UPS should be treated as part of computer hardware. On the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB), but disallowed 43B, related to R & D unit, the CIT(A) relying on High Court of Calcutta in 292 ITR 470 and this tribunal decisions in the case of IOB vs DCIT in ITA No 1815/Mds/2011…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. Beekman Helix India Consulting India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kambleita No.-2307/Del/2011 (Assessment Year 2007-08)

Section 14Section 14A

…ccessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60% “. 9.5. Furthermore, in the case of CIT vs Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd (56 DTR 397), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, relying on its own judgment in the case of CIT vs BSES Yamuna Powers Limited (supra), has held as under: “The assessee company had claimed depreciation on UPS @ 60 per cent whereas the AO had allowed it @ 25 percent and on this basis, disallowance of Rs. 1,4 70 was made. The issue now stands covered by the judgm…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Beckman Helix Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2307/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kambleita No.-2307/Del/2011 (Assessment Year 2007-08)

Section 14Section 14A

…ccessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60% “. 9.5. Furthermore, in the case of CIT vs Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd (56 DTR 397), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, relying on its own judgment in the case of CIT vs BSES Yamuna Powers Limited (supra), has held as under: “The assessee company had claimed depreciation on UPS @ 60 per cent whereas the AO had allowed it @ 25 percent and on this basis, disallowance of Rs. 1,4 70 was made. The issue now stands covered by the judgm…

Avl India Software Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 279/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Singh ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

…ssee is in appeal before us. 51. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we find that the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (2011) 56 DTR 397, holding that UPS would form part of computer peripherals and accessories and, accordingly, depreciation is to be allowed at 60% rate. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court, order of authorities below on the issue in question is set aside and the assessee’s claim for depreciation @ 60% is directed to be all…

Avl India Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Singh ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

…ssee is in appeal before us. 51. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we find that the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (2011) 56 DTR 397, holding that UPS would form part of computer peripherals and accessories and, accordingly, depreciation is to be allowed at 60% rate. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court, order of authorities below on the issue in question is set aside and the assessee’s claim for depreciation @ 60% is directed to be all…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibicen K. Mathew, CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2007-08 State Bank of Mysore, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Head Office, P.B. No.9727, Income Tax, K.G. Road, Large Tax Payers Unit (LTU), Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. PAN: AACCS 0155P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Sibicen K. Mathew, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 24.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…cation i.e. 60%. Reliance was also placed in the following cases: a) 25 SOT 184 (Mum) Venture Infotek Global (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT b) 118 TTJ 652 (Del) Expeditors Inter. India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT c) ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del) CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. d) 11 Taxmann.com 417 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. e) 118 TTJ 652 (Del) Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ld. CIT f) 136 TTJ 505 (Del) Birlasoft India Ltd. vs DCIT ITAT 18. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and carefully gone through the material placed on the record. In our opinion, since computer accessori…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…cation i.e. 60%. Reliance was also placed in the following cases: a) 25 SOT 184 (Mum) Venture Infotek Global (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT b) 118 TTJ 652 (Del) Expeditors Inter. India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT c) ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del) CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. d) 11 Taxmann.com 417 (Del) CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. e) 118 TTJ 652 (Del) Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ld. CIT f) 136 TTJ 505 (Del) Birlasoft India Ltd. vs DCIT ITAT 18. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and carefully gone through the material placed on the record. In our opinion, since computer accessori…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. United Liner Agencies of India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 970/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

Section 80Section 80I

…, Scanners and Projectors attached to the Computer(Grounds of appeal No.11 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07), we have heard both the parties. Ld. A.R relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd., 56 DTR 397, copy of the decision was placed on our record and was also given to Ld. D.R. The issue was decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court as per following observations: “13. The third issue pertaining to depreciation on UPS arises only in the asst. yr. 2005-06. The assessee had claimed depreciation on UPS @60 per cent whereas the AO had allowed it @25 per c…

CIT vs. Intertoll Ics Cecons O & M Company P. Ltd

ITA/414/2012HC Delhi22 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…s and UPS. Thc assessee lrad clairncd 60% deprecialion. Thc AO allor.ved only 25Yo. This Cout notices that the items i.c. printers, scanners and UPS are separatcly covered by two decisions of this Court. i.e.. CIT v. Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd, (2011) 56 DTR 397 (Del) (in CIT t B Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Lj *t respect of UPS), CIT v. B,S/S Yamuna Powers Ltd., and CIT v. BSE^S Rajdhani Pou'ers Ltd.,lTANo.l267l20l0 and 126612010 in respect of printers and scanners (both decided on 31.08.2010). No substantial question of law arises on this aspect; findings of the 'fribunal are acc…

CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (11 Taxmann.com 417) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax