For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The first issue raised by the Revenuedeletion of the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,58,000/- made under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As-assessee had not earned any dividend or exempt income in this year rule 8D not applicable as per variousdecision. The second issue raised by the Revenue that-assessee had claimed depreciation @15% per annumas plant and machinery acording to revenuerespondent-assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 10% as the items were electrical fittings There are some whichcould possibly fall under the category of ‘electrical fittings’ whereas certain other items like 4KVA voltage Stabilizer, online UPS 1 KVA etc. may not fall under the category of ‘electrical fittings however the amountbeing paltry question dismised. The third ground raised by the Revenue relates to disallowance of depreciation on canteen building of Rs. 5,83,812/- on the ground that canteen was operational after the end of the financial year on basis that final bill of contractor wassubmitted on 27th April, 2010. mere submission of the final bill by the canteen contractor would not show that the canteen had not been put to use and was not operationalized in the Assessment Year itself The factual finding has been upheld by the Tribunal. There is no ground and reason to interfere with the said factual finding.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 14A, 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, first issue raised by the Revenue pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,58,000/- made under Section 14A of the Act.
Held that—It is accepted and admitted by the counsel for the Revenue that the assessee had not earned any dividend or exempt income in this year. Once this factual position is accepted, the issue raised is covered against the Revenue vide decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs. Holcim India Private Limited, (2014) (DELHI HIGH COURT) and judgment in Cheminvest Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) (DELHI HIGH COURT).

The second and the third issue raised by the Revenue pertain to depreciation. The respondent-assessee had claimed depreciation @15% per annum on different items as plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority had held that the respondent-assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 10% as the items were electrical fittings.
Held that—As examined the list and would observe that wall mounting fans, copper flexible cable, tube fitting etc. could possibly fall under the category of ‘electrical fittings’ whereas certain other items like 4KVA voltage Stabilizer, online UPS 1 KVA etc. may not fall under the category of ‘electrical fittings’. However, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was 11,89,000/-. The amount being paltry, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present appeal on the question of rate of depreciation.

The third ground raised by the Revenue relates to disallowance of depreciation on canteen building on the ground that the canteen contractor had submitted the final bill on 27th April, 2010, i.e. after the end of the financial year.
Held that—Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had rightly observed and held that mere submission of the final bill by the canteen contractor would not show that the canteen had not been put to use and was not operationalized in the Assessment Year itself. After examining the bills of canteen contractor, which pertained to the earlier period, it has been held that the canteen had been operationalized before the Assessment Year had ended. The factual finding has been upheld by the Tribunal. There is no ground and reason to interfere with the said factual finding.[THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 VERSUS NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.] [2018] [6] [ITCD Online][134][DELHI HIGH COURT]