TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on on computer peripherals amounting to Rs. 71, 89, 908/- despite the fact that these includes some of the items which are not integral part of the computer? 3. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation on computer software amounting to Rs. 34, 54, 795/- despite the fact computer and computer software are not mentioned in the Rule 5(1A) and Appendix 1A for fulfilling the requirement of Section 32(l)(ii) of the IT Act. 4. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting addition on account of club expenses to Rs. 11, 25, 761/- despite the fact that these expenses develops the personality traits of the users of the company which ultimately benefit the company for a longer period resulting in to capital expenditure?" 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of Newspaper, Periodicals and broadcasting on Radio. The return was filed on 30. 09. 2009 declaring income under Business at Nil, capital loss of Rs. 73, 69, 13, 822/- and Rs. 1, 23, 55, 63, 243/- under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. This was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08 and 2008-09 in assessee's own case wherein similar ground of department was dismissed following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. 8. As regards to Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal relating to allowability of additional depreciation on computer and computer software i. e. computer to plate (CTP), the Ld. AR submitted that this ground is covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A. Y. 2008-09 wherein similar ground of department was dismissed holding that computer and computer software are to be considered as part of machinery for the purpose of additional depreciation. 9. As regards to Ground No. 4 of the Revenue's appeal relating to allowability of club expenses, the Ld. AR submitted that this ground is covered in favour of the assessee vide orders of the Tribunal for AYs. 2007- 08 and 2008-09 wherein similar ground was decided in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. United Glass Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 2012-TIOL-102-SC-IT. 10. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order but could not contro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. ITA No. 2100/DEL/2015 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL (A. Y 2010-11) 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 8, 223, 500/- made by the Assessing Officer towards administrative expenses under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules without appreciating that making a disallowance as per Rule 8D results in arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified disallowance. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had added an amount of Rs. 500, 000/- in the return of income on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act for administrative expenses, against which during the course of assessment proceedings the Appellant had offered an amount of Rs. 545, 000/- on the basis upheld in appeals for earlier years by appellate authorities, which amount of disallowance ought to have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, being reasonable and justified considering fact of the case. 3. That the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has not discussed and recorded satisfactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance made by the Assessing Officer without recording satisfaction is not sustainable. In Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee company made disallowance on account of administrative expenses to extent of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. AR submitted that in this year i. e. A. Y. 2010-11, the assessee company made disallowance of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- in original return, which was duly substantiated with facts that there were only eight investments in mutual funds and companies from which exempt income was received. Income on four mutual funds had accrued and reinvested. In respect of other four investments dividend warrants were received and credited to bank account. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that there was negligible cost incurred by the assessee company. The Ld. AR further submitted that disallowance was, thereafter, revised to Rs. 5, 45, 000/- as per calculations of proportionate cost of finance department, for which the basis upheld in earlier years. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer without discussing the facts and contentions of the company determined disallowance at Rs. 2, 70, 21, 293/-. The CIT(A) restricted the same to Rs. 82, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S. C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on account of administrative expenses, but the CIT(A) erred in restricting this disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on account of interest and administrative expenses. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order. The Ld. DR submitted that this year is not identical with the previous Assessment Year i. e. 2009-10. The Ld. DR submitted that in this Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee made huge investment for which the assessee has not pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 50 crores (38. 50 + 228. 50 = 267 / 2), the same needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer as the disallowance u/s 14A cannot be more than the exempt income as the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for calculating the average investment and the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on non-exempt investments including the interest portion. We remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate it a fresh as per the directions given by us hereinabove. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal and Ground No. 1 to 5 of the Assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose. 25. Ground No. 2 of Department's appeal relating to disallowance on account of training expenses, the Ld. AR submitted that this Ground is covered in favour of the assessee company vide orders of Tribunal for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 wherein similar ground of department was dismissed following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Solus Pharmaceutic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 2100/DEL/2015 are partly allowed for statistical purpose. 32. Now we are taking up the appeals for A. Y. 2011-12 filed by both the parties. Grounds of appeals are as follows: ITA No. 3532/DEL/2016 REVENUE'S APPEAL (A. Y 2011-12) "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 4, 47, 52, 906/- made u/s 14A r. w. r. 8D. ITA No. 2854/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL (A. Y 2011-12) 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 4, 935, 000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards administrative expenses under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules without appreciating that making a disallowance as per Rule 8D results in arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified disallowance. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had added an amount of Rs. 100, 000/- in the return of income on account of disallowance under section 14 A of the Act for administrative expenses which ought to have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, being reasonable and justified considering fact of the case. 3. That the ....