2010 (11) TMI 802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 36(2) of the Act so as to allow deduction of loss of 1.56 crore u/s 36 (1) (vii) of the Act.? (iii) Whether loss on sale of repossessed assets is a capital loss or it is a bad debt allowable u/s 36(1) (vii) R/W Section 36 (2) of the Act.? (iv) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation @ 60% to the assessee on computer accessories and peripherals like printers etc.? (v) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law and on facts?" 2. These questions primarily raise two issues which can be summarized as under:- (1) The respondent assessee is in the business of financing automobile cars/lease finance etc. Various persons to whom this finance was given were the defaulters and the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....depreciation was allowable under the Act. This order is also upheld by the Tribunal. 3. In so far as second issue is concerned, it should not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that this issue is now settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (ITA 1267/2010 decided on 31.8.2010), holding that on computers and peripherals, depreciation at the rate of 60% is allowable. 4. Coming to the first issue, as pointed out above, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that an identical issue had been examined by the High Court of Allahabad in Motor General Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 226 ITR 137, wherein it had been held by the Court that deduction could not be allowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actor, as the facts before the High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s Motor General and Sales Pvt. Ltd. reported in 226 ITR 137, as is relied by the Assessing Officer in his order were different. In that case the assessee had merely revalued the assets, whereas the assessee in the instant case had also sold the same and did not claim the loss on mere revaluation of repossessed assets as was the situation in the case before the Allahabad High Court. 6. We find from the order of CIT (A) that there is a detailed discussion on this aspect in para 1.3 of his order where following admitted facts are taken note of:- "i) There is no dispute that the appellant is a NBFC and is in the business of money lending giving finance for purch....