TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 and 31-12-2015 respectively. 2. Briefly stated, assessees is a company engaged in the business of maintaining and operation of horse race-course and running various races. It filed its return of income, declaring income of Rs. 22,15,03,214/- for AY. 2010-11 and Rs. 19,81,75,309/- for AY. 2011-12 in the respective due dates. In the consequential scrutiny assessments completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), as in earlier years, AO made a disallowance of 15% ad-hoc disallowance out of race winning payments of less than Rs. 2,500/- amounting to disallowance of Rs. 52,64,73,818/- in AY. 2010-11 and Rs. 63,65,05,974/- for AY. 2011-12. The AO records in the order that instead of producing the required information, assessee is relying on the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the A Y 2006-07 (iv) ITA No. 1425/Hyd/2011 for the A Y 2007-08 (v) ITA No. 120/Htd/2012 for the A Y 2008-09 dt. 16.07.2012 (vi) ITA No. 108/Hyd/2013 for the A Y 2009-10 dt. 30.04.2013" 4.2 I have perused the above orders of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad for the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2009-10. The relevant portion of the order dt. 30.04.2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 108/Hyd/2013 is reproduced as under: "7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. On perusal of the documents submitted before under section we find that identical issue of ad hoc disallowances of 15% came up for consideration before the IT Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in case of the very same assessee right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessee's own case we delete the ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the total payment for winning bets of less than 2500/- each. The appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed" 6. Since the issue under consideration is identical to the one decided by the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 (supra), respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Since the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench as referred to above, we respectfully follow the same and uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in deleting the addition on account of ad hoc disallowance made by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in the sense that it is questioning whether CIT(A) is correct in following the decision of the ITAT. We must state that CIT(A) is correct in following the decision as in the judicial hierarchy, the orders of the higher forum has to be followed. The jurisdictional High Court (Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court way back in the year 1987) in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs., Commercial Tax Officer [169 ITR 564], had explained the importance of a precedent wherein it observed that a binding decision of a superior authority is bound to be followed by a lower authority and not following such a decision would cause grave prejudice to an assessee. Respectfully following the same, we do not see any reason to entertain the grounds raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to 15% instead of 60%. Further, the facts of the case laws relied upon by the assessee are different from the facts of the instant case. In the cases cited by the assessee the claim of higher depreciation was allowed for computer accessories such as printers, scanners etc. In the instant case the depreciation claimed is for electronic display system which is not eligible for depreciation @ 60%. Therefore, the disallowance made of Rs. 25,24,708/- is upheld". 4.1. It was the submission that the assets were purchased in FY. 2007-08 relevant for AY. 2008-09 and depreciation was allowed at 60%. Said equipment was allowed as a computer system in AYs. 2008-09 and 2009-10. What assessee has claimed in the impugned years is nothing but deprecia....