Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst.CIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee company filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was taken up under scrutiny as per notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. The assessee company appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising out of the Assessment Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee argued that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erroneous in law and on facts. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of 'Advance received from Customers' under the contracts entered into by the assessee, which does not constitute revenue/income of the relevant assessment year. The assessee also argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,51,913 debited under the accounting head 'TDS recoverable written off in the books of account, without appreciating the nature of the expense and by mechanically following the orders passed by CIT(A) for earlier assessment years. The Department of Revenue pleaded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,71,50,036/- made by AO on account of depreciation claimed on intangible assets.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of 'Advance received from Customers' under the contracts entered into by the assessee, which does not constitute revenue/income of the relevant assessment year.
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,51,913 debited under the accounting head 'TDS recoverable written off in the books of account, without appreciating the nature of the expense and by mechanically following the orders passed by CIT(A) for earlier assessment years.
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,71,50,036/- made by AO on account of depreciation claimed on intangible assets.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• T.K.Elevators India Private Limited (Formerly ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd.) vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘H’ benchAY 2010-11Allowed

• Om Sri Maa Shakti Naman Vs. Asst. CIT Circle -32(2)

  Mumbai bench

• M/s. Capricorn Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

  Pune bench

• Sudarshan Yellaiah Pathipaka vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3

  Mumbai bench

• ITA No. 3959/Mum/2024

  Mumbai bench

• M/s Synergy Telecommunications vs. DCIT-Central Circle – 2

  Chandigarh bench