ACIT -CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRIME FOCUS LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6133/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 August 2021AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 05/08/2021Pronounced: 30/08/2021

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.

1.

(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.

3.

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.

4.

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

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →