DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment

81 TTJ 448Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#5087 most cited

What is DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment authority for?

Non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6) alone is not a sufficient basis to deny the genuineness of expenditure incurred by a company. The assessee's obligation extends to providing correct names and addresses of parties, not ensuring their response.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment · 81 TTJ 448 · section 133(6) · non-compliance with notice · genuineness of expenditure · business expenditure · evidence · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44AE

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 2(29)r&d expenditureweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)section 80icbusiness connectionsection 9(1)(vii)computer softwaresection 40(a)(i)section 260apermanent establishment

Judgments citing DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jaipur Golden Transport Co Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

…ax b) 43 DTR 116 (TM) (Agra) ITO vs Mayur Aggarwal c) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs CIT d) 73 ITD 189 (Del) Goodyear India Ltd vs ITO e) 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) Hughes Escorts Communications Limited vs JCIT f) 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) Sunder Mal Sat Pal vs ITO g) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh) DCIT vs Surface Finishing Equipment h) 237 ITR 570 (SC) Manika Gems &Ors v ACIT i) 104 TTJ 254 (Pune) Coco Cola (India) Ltd v JCIT j) 253 ITR 749 (Guj) Sayaji Iron &Engg. Co. Again, mere non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6) cannot be made a basis to hold that expenditure incurred by the appellant company is not genuine. T…

Shree Veer Buildbest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3) Now Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 892/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…facts of both cases. In the case relied upon by the AO, the expenses were proved to be sham. The assessee further cited judicial pronouncements in case of Rajat Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 48 (Ind.) and DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodhpur) to support their contention that ad hoc disallowances without specific evidence were unjustifiable. 10. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 11. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and note that the assessee's turnover increased significantly by 68.08% from Rs.2.30 crores to Rs.3.87 crores, while maintaini…

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3044/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3043/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2902/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2901/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1545/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1544/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1543/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1465/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1464/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…f higher depreciation on the UPS which was energy saving device. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Surface Finishing and Equipment reported in 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh). As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee higher rate of depreciation on the UPS, which is an energy saving device. In the circumstances ground No.2 in the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. 17. In…

M/S. Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 126/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 4G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income MBD House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACB9469K Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: These two appeals…

M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 354/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 4G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income MBD House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACB9469K Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: These two appeals…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…ge controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it w…

Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 317/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it…

Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 316/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energey Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 205/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energey Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 204/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…controller as well as power saving equipment is a energy saving device and claimed the depreciation @80% in accordance with Appendix-I to Income-Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of 1TAT’s Order in DCIT v Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448. The AO examined the explanation of the assessee and held that the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it…

DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment (81 TTJ 448) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax