Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81282 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
29-10-2014
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
19-03-2012
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 575/MDS/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S. MULTIVISTA GLOBAL PVT.LTD 44, RAJAM TOWER, K.B.DASAN CHENNAI-600 018. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(3)(I/C) CHENNAI-600 034. PAN: AAACM7613G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.P. RADHAKRISHNAN , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, CHEN NAI DATED 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT ON SALES. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT NOTICED THAT ASSESS EE DEBITED ` 11,70,855/- TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS 2 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 DISCOUNT ON SALES. HE NOTICED THAT OUT OF THIS AMOU NT ` 10,74,225/- RELATES TO SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, HE PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE SAID AMOUNT SINCE IT RELATES TO EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT IT ALLOWED DISCOUNT FOR SALES EFFECTED DURING EARLIER YEARS AND CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR BY A CREDIT NOTE DATED 30.03 .2007. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENSES BUT DISCOUNT OFFERED FOR SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DISCOUNT ON SALES FOR EARLIER YEARS STATING THAT AS PER THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE, D ISCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN THE CORRESPONDING YEARS BUT NOT IN THE CURRENT YEAR. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE STATING THAT A SSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE FAILED TO JUSTIFY ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE H AS WRITTEN OFF PART OF THE SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AS DISCOUNTS IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IT COULD NOT REAL IZE THAT PART OF SALES. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT DISCOUNTS WRITTEN OF F BEING PART OF SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND IS NOTHING BUT WRITE OFF 3 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 OF SALES IRRECOVERABLE. HE SUBMITS THAT SUCH WRITTE N OFF AMOUNTS WHICH RELATES TO SHORT PAYMENTS BY CUSTOMER S ARE ALLOWABLE. HE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MU MBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN THO MPSON ASSOCIATES P.LTD. VS. ACIT (53 SOT 389) AND THE DEC ISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS . CIT (323 ITR 397) AND IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. C IT (323 ITR 166). 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED DISCOUNTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE ST ATING THAT DISCOUNTS RELATE TO SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE DISCOUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN THE CORRESPOND ING YEARS AND NOT IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE 4 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 DISALLOWANCE. THE DISCOUNTS WHICH WERE WRITTEN OFF DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THOUGH RELATES TO EARLIER YEAR S ARE NOTHING BUT SHORT PAYMENTS BY THE CUSTOMERS. THE AS SESSEE ISSUED CREDIT NOTES AND WRITTEN OFF THESE AMOUNTS A S DISCOUNTS AS THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT RECOVERABLE. THOUGH THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AS DISCOUNTS THEY ARE NOTHING BUT BAD DEBTS. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE BAD DEBTS ONC E WRITTEN OFF ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IT IS ALWAYS OP EN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE DISCOUNTS / BAD DEB TS WRITTEN OFF UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT, IN CASE THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVES SUCH AMOUNTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT OF ` 10,74,225/-. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPORT COMMISSION OF ` 12,82,626/- FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED EXPORT COMMISS ION OF ` 12,82,626/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT 5 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY TDS AND FURTHER ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE / AGREEMENT TO SHOW THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPORT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EX CEPT COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJEC TED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A COMMISSION PAYME NT. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAI NED THE DISALLOWANCE STATING THAT EVEN BEFORE THE PROCE EDINGS BEFORE HIM ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT NATURE OF SERVICE FOR WHICH T HE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID. 7. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT COMMISSIO N WAS PAID FOR PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS AND SINCE NO TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY NON-RESIDENT AGENTS AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ONLY FOR PROCUREMENT OF SA LES ORDERS, THE COMMISSION PAID IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTIO N 6 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS. COUNS EL PLACES RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTIONS. 8. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITS THAT ASS ESSEE HAS NEVER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT HAD INC URRED ANY EXPORT COMMISSION EXCEPT FILING LEDGER EXTRACT IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IT HAD INCURRED AN Y COMMISSION ON EXPORTS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD INCURRED COMMISSION ON EXPORT. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT EVEN BEFOR E THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENC E TO SHOW THAT IT HAD INCURRED COMMISSION ON EXPORTS AND THE DETAILS OF EXPORT ORDERS PROCURED WAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD SO AS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENSES T OWARDS EXPORT COMMISSION. THEREFORE HE SUBMITS THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 9. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPORT COMMISS ION STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AND FURT HER NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES ON EXPORT COMMISSION . THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLI SH THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPORT COMMISSION. EVEN BEFORE US NO E VIDENCE IS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES TOWARDS EXPORT COMMISSION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE REJECTED. 10. THE LAST ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES BETWEEN THE UNITS ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AND THE UNITS NOT ELIGI BLE BASED ON THE TURNOVER OF THE UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE ALL OCATED MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION A ND BENEFITS BETWEEN UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 10B DEDU CTION AND 8 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 UNITS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 10B DEDUCTION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED ENTIRE MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION & BENEFITS O NLY TO NON 10B UNITS. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOS ED THAT THE MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND EMPLOYEE REMUNERATI ON BENEFITS SHOULD BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN 10B UNITS AN D NON 10B UNITS BASED ON THE TURNOVER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B BY APPORTIONING THE EXPENDITURE OF MANAGERIAL REMUNERA TION AND EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION & BENEFITS BASED ON THE TUR NOVER AND RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF T HE ACT. THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE TUNE OF ` 21,45,781/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPORTIONING THE SAID E XPENSES BASED ON THE TURNOVER OF THE UNDERTAKING. 11. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOCATED EMPLOYEE COSTS ON TURNOVER BA SIS. HE SUBMITS THAT EMPLOYEE COSTS SHOULD BE AT ACTUALS. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT INSOFAR AS MANAGERIAL 9 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 REMUNERATION IS CONCERNED, IT MAY BE BASED ON TURNO VER BUT NOT THE EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS. HE SUB MITS THAT EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOCATED ON TURNOVER BASIS AND IT SHOULD BE BASED ON ACTUALS. H E PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EHPT INDIA PVT. LTD., (24 TAXMAN 63 9) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. 12. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOCATED THE MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND EMPLOYEE REMUNERATI ON & BENEFITS BETWEEN 10B UNITS AND NON 10B UNITS BASED ON TURNOVER OF UNITS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ALLOCATE ANY EXPENSES TO 10B UNITS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT AS FAR AS THE EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS A RE CONCERNED, THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ACTUALS I.E. EMP LOYEE 10 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 REMUNERATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE SAID UNI TS ON THE BASIS OF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE SAID UNITS AND EM PLOYEE REMUNERATION & BENEFITS CANNOT BE BIFURCATED BASED ON THE TURNOVER. INSOFAR AS MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION IS CON CERNED ALL THE UNITS ARE MANAGED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. TH E REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS AND TOP EXECUTIVES MA Y BE BIFURCATED ON TURNOVER BASIS. THUS, WE DIRECT THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE WORKING OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT BY ALLOCATING EMPLOYEE REMUN ERATION & BENEFITS ONLY ON ACTUALS FOR THE 10B UNITS AND NON 10B UNITS AND MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION BASED ON TURNOVER OF TH E UNITS, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHAL L VERIFY AND RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL STATING THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN D ISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON AIR-CONDITIONER AND LAPTOP. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO RAISE THIS GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF FILI NG OF APPEAL. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE 11 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTING THE GROUND. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ADMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED DEPRECIA TION ON AIR-CONDITIONERS ON THE GROUND THAT AIR-CONDITIONER S WERE INSTALLED IN THE CHAIRMANS RESIDENCE AND THEREFORE NOT USED FOR ASSESSEE BUSINESS PURPOSES. SIMILARLY HE DISALL OWED DEPRECIATION ON LAPTOP ON THE GROUND THAT LAPTOP WA S PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF MR. DEEPAK SUBRAMANYAN, VI CE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER AND THE ASSET IS NOT PUT TO USE FOR ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSES. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE. 15. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LAPTOP WA S PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF VICE PRESIDENT SINCE LAPTO P COMPANIES OFFERED HIGHER DISCOUNTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHEN COMPARED TO CORPORATES. THEREFORE TO AVAIL SPECIAL DISCOUNT LAPTOP WAS BOUGHT IN THE NAME OF VICE-PRESIDENT . C OUNSEL THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENI ED ON AIR- 12 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 CONDITIONER AND LAPTOP SINCE THEY WERE USED ONLY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 16. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHO RITIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON AIR-CONDI TIONER AND LAPTOP OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.4 GROUND NO . 5: THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS . 40 , 430 / - ON A IR-CONDITIONERS A ND LAPTOP . PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSM E NT RECORD RE V EALS TH A T WHILE VERIFYING THE PROOF O F ADDITIONS TO 6 ASSETS IT W A S FOUND BY THE AO THAT A I R CONDITIONER IS FOUND TO BE INSTALLED AT TH E CHAIRMAN ' S RESIDENC E A ND HENCE NOT USED FOR THE BUSIN E SS PURPOSES OF THE APPELLANT . SIMILA R LY IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE APP E LLANT HAD PURCHASED A LAPTOP AND IT WAS IN THE NAME OF ONE MR DEEPAK SUBRAMANYAN , VICE PRESIDENT OF T H E C OMPAN Y . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS T H E AO ASK E D TH E APP E LLANT TO SH O W CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS BEEN DISALLOWED. WITH REGARD TO THE DEPRECIATION OF THE AIR-CONDITIONER , AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS DISALLOWANCE. THIS FACT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER , THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN APPEAL. SINCE THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT OBJ ECTED TO IN ASSESSMENT 13 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO AGITATE THE SAID DIS A LL O WAN C E NOW. THIS DISAL L OWANCE, THEREFORE, IS CONFIRMED . AS REGARDS LA P TOP, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL L ANT ; IN THE ASSESSMENT PR O CEEDINGS THAT THE LAPTOP COMPANIES OFFER A DISCOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS COMPARED TO CORPORATES AND TO AVAIL SPECIAL DISCOUNT, THE LAPTOP FOR BUSINESS USE OF VICE PRESIDENT WAS BOUGHT IN HIS NAME. THE AO HELD THAT SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN ADVANCED NOT THE OWNER OF THE ASSET HENCE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE REGION ON THAT ASSET . DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL , IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE LAPTOPS ARE SUBJECT TO WARRANTY AND USER IDENTIFIABLE, THE BILL HAD TO BE IN THE NAME OF MR, DEEPAK SUBRAMANYAN AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY . THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT CONVINCING SINCE THE LAPTOPS ARE P URCHASED IN THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES AND THE CLAUSES WITH REGARD TO WARRANTY ETC APPLY EQUALLY TO THE CORPORATE AS THEY APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS. THEREFORE THE REASON GIVEN BY THE A PP E LL ANT FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAPTOP IN THE NAME OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY IS NOT CONVINCING . THE EARLIER STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE AO IS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND ALSO ITS USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. IN VI E W OF THESE FACTS , THE ACTION OF THE AO I N DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON LAPTOP IS ALSO CONFIRMED . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED . 18. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. THE ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED . 14 ITA NO.575/MDS/2012 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .
