2018 (4) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in not only confirming but also enhancing the assessment. The impugned orders being bad in law are liable to be quashed. 2. In any case and without prejudice the learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the assessment without giving the opportunity to show cause in terms of section 251(2) of the Act. The enhancement as made being erroneous is to be deleted. 3. In any case and without further prejudice the learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 4,27,530/- being depreciation claimed on purchase of software u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act holding that the appellant has not deducted tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correct both on facts and law is to be allowed as such. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest, The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds of the appeal to be adduced at the time of hearing, it. is requested that the impugned assessment order be quashed or atleast the disallowances as made and sustained be deleted, the enhancement as made by the CIT(A) be deleted and. interest levied be also deleted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of ready-made garments, accessories and textile goods. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ann.com 482 (P&H) iv. Subex vs. Dy.CIT(68 taxmann.com 233)(Bang) On the other hand, the ld. Addl.CIT(DR) placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in present appeal is whether the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable to the purchase of capital assets. Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee has purchased software which is capitalized in the books of account and claimed depreciation thereon. The Assessing Officer denied depreciation holding that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source. This issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mark Auto Industri....