ACIT -CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRIME FOCUS LIMITED, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that similar claims were allowed in preceding and succeeding assessment years, and the Assessing Officer had also allowed the full claim in a later year.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's full claim for depreciation at 60% on Plant & Machinery (computer-based items). The Assessing Officer had restricted this claim to 15%.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the rate of depreciation applicable to computer-based plant and machinery. The Tribunal considered the consistency of treatment in prior and subsequent years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] dated 14.06.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
(A.Y. 2012-13) 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal is against the assessee’s claim for depreciation at the rate of 60% on Plant & Machinery. The assessee has claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs. 18.60 crores at the rate of 60% on Plant & Machinery (computer based items). During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) restricted assessee’s claim of depreciation on Plant & Machinery which is in the nature of computers to 15%. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim in full by following the order of his predecessor in AY 2011-12. The CIT(A) further observed that the AO has himself allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer base items in AY 2014-15.
Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi representing the Department fairly admitted that the assessee’s claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% was allowed by the CIT(A) in the preceding AY and in succeeding AY the AO has allowed the claim of depreciation in full.
Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer based equipment, which was restricted to 15% by the AO. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee in full after following the order of First Appellate Authority for AY 2011-12. It is further observed that the AO has himself allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 60% on computer based equipment in AY 2014-15. From perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that the issue is perennial. In AY 2005-06, 2007-08 and AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 the CIT(A) had allowed assessee’s similar claim of depreciation on computer based equipments. In appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of First Appellate Authority.
(A.Y. 2012-13) 5. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, sans merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 30th day of August, 2021.
More judgments on Section 32
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026