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 366,339 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

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

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

ITA 203/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2006-07

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. Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 629/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2007-08

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 351/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2007-2008

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…