TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing substantial questions of law that have been admitted on 29.04.2014. "i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 115JB is not applicable to banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the claim of deduction for provision made for leave salary without actual payment contrary to the provisions of Section 43B? iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing higher rate of depreciation on UPS (uninterrupted power supply) when UPS is not an integral part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when the assessing authority rightly made disallowance by holding that irrespective of RBI guidelines were applicable to the assessee for the purposes of the I.T.Act or not, as per the principles of accountancy and the various decisions of Apex Court, income should be recognized in a way which reflects a true and fair picture of the affairs of the assessee and accordingly, when bank itself is treating the securities as "held to maturity", for any reason whatsoever, the same should be the case for purposes of Income Tax as this representation alone reflects the true picture of the accounts of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in [2020] 114 taxmann.com 506/270 Taxman162/422 ITR 116 (Kar.) 3. It is further also submitted that the 2nd substantial question of law involved in this appeal also has already been answered in favour of the assessee by this Court vide judgment dated 15.02.2021 in ITA No.133/2015 the case of CIT v. Quest Global Engineering Services(P). Ltd. It is further submitted that the 4th substantial question of law is also answered by a bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 23.11.2020, passed in CIT v. Corporation Bank [2021] 123 taxmann.com 204/277 taxman 207/431 ITR 554 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 5. For the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n terms of the earlier dispensation. In absence of any such provision, the sole operative provision was Section 145(1) of the 1961 Act that allowed complete autonomy to the assessee to follow the mercantile system. Now a limited change has been brought about by the insertion of clause (f) in Section 43B and nothing more. It applies prospectively. Merely because a liability has been held to be a present liability qualifying for instant deduction in terms of the applicable provisions at the relevant time does not ipso facto signify that deduction against such liability cannot be regulated by a law made by Parliament prospectively. In matter of statutory deductions, it is open to the legislature to withdraw the same prospectively. In other wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal affairs and underlying concerns of public revenue. A priori, merely because a certain liability has been declared to be a present liability by the Court as per the prevailing enactment, it does not follow that legislature is denuded of its power to correct the mischief with prospective effect, including to create a new liability, exempt an existing liability, create a deduction or subject an existing deduction to new regulatory measures. Strictly speaking, the Court cannot venture into hypothetical spheres while adjudging constitutionality of a duly enacted provision and unfounded limitations cannot be read into the process of judicial review. A priori, the plea that clause (f) has been enacted with the sole purpose to defeat the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....depreciation that can be claimed for UPS and Routers, the Tribunal in the impugned order relied upon earlier decision of the Chennai Tribunal as well as the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Ceramics and Industries Limited reported in (2013) 358 ITR 49 (Del.) and held that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation at 60%. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is just and proper. 5. An UPS which is capable of giving uninterrupted power supply for a computer of a stipulated period has not been established to have an independent usage by placing any material. If the revenue disputes that the UPS can independently function, then the Assessing Officer sh....