Full Text
Translation output
s n
U
#2&3 o/oL}.L0.201L
Present : Mr. N.P.Sahni, Advocate for the appellant.
+ITA No.1-1-36/2011- & ITA No.1137/201L
Two issues raised in these appeals. The first issue pertains to
Section 2 (22) (e)
9f the Income Tax Act. It has already been decided against the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA
No.462l2009. The other i.ssue relates to the addition made by the assessing officer under Section \4AlRuIe BD of the Income Tax Act.
We find from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has simply remitted the case to the assessing officer for adjudication of the issue afresh. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. Last issue pertains to the depreciation of computer peripherals like printer etc. where the depreciation is allowed @ 60% as against the depreciation allowed @ 25% by the assessing officer.
The total amount involved is only < 65,338/- and for this reason we are not entertaining this issue in the present appeal.
These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MzuDUL, J
OCTOBER ].0, ZOLI mm r tcL _
EF JUSTICE
2011:DHC:12001
U
#2&3 o/oL}.L0.201L
Present : Mr. N.P.Sahni, Advocate for the appellant.
+ITA No.1-1-36/2011- & ITA No.1137/201L
Two issues raised in these appeals. The first issue pertains to
Section 2 (22) (e)
9f the Income Tax Act. It has already been decided against the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA
No.462l2009. The other i.ssue relates to the addition made by the assessing officer under Section \4AlRuIe BD of the Income Tax Act.
We find from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has simply remitted the case to the assessing officer for adjudication of the issue afresh. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. Last issue pertains to the depreciation of computer peripherals like printer etc. where the depreciation is allowed @ 60% as against the depreciation allowed @ 25% by the assessing officer.
The total amount involved is only < 65,338/- and for this reason we are not entertaining this issue in the present appeal.
These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MzuDUL, J
OCTOBER ].0, ZOLI mm r tcL _
EF JUSTICE
2011:DHC:12001
JUDGMENT