TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted depreciation at the rate of 60% on uninterrupted power supply (UPS) against 15% allowed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in considering UPS as an integral part of the computer. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, UPS could only be considered an accessory to a computer and it could not be allowed depreciation which was available to a computer. 4. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative pointed out that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had followed the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Asset Management Co Ltd vs. DCIT, 145 ITD 17. 5. We have co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee in its cross objection is aggrieved on disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had suo-motu disallowed H1,44,000/-. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had made a disallowance of H52,72,554/- without expressing any dissatisfaction on the disallowance made by the assessee. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that application of Section 14A of the Act was not automatic. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449. Reading para 36 of the judgment of Apex Court, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that unless....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al direct and indirect cost relatable to treasury activity 1,44,000 There is nothing available on record, to show how the assessee estimated the time spent per day by a Senior Manager as five minutes and Manager as fifteen minutes for managing its investment which were to be tune of H132,39,84,480/-. Even the salary cost mentioned in the table was only an approximation without any scientific basis. Reason given by the ld. Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim of expenditure of H1,44,000/- is given hereunder:- ''5.1 Considering the quantum of investments held by the assessee and the dividend amount earned out of the investments, I am not satisfied with the working provided by the assessee for arriving at the d....