Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एच” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-1(1)(2) M/s Hindustan Field Services P. Ltd. बिाम/ 8th Floor, Dakshina, Sector-11 R.No.579, Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Plot No.2, CBD Belapur Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 614 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/GIR No. AABCH-9517-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee by : Ms. Hirali Desai – Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/04/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)] which has held that the assessee was entitled for depreciation of 60% on mobiles, tablets which were not used merely as communication equipment as against depreciation of 15% allowed by Ld. AO while framing assessment on 29/02/2016. The perusal of impugned order show that Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Tribunal in AY 2012-13 while adjudicating the impugned issue.
The Ld. AR pleaded that the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the order of Tribunal for AY 2012-13, order dated 18/06/2019 and Ld. CIT(A) has merely followed the same in this year. The copy of the order has been placed on record. The stated fact could not be controverted by Ld. DR. 3. The material facts are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in providing field services. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed depreciation on mobiles and tabs @60% treating them as computer. These devices were provided to the employees for the purpose of transmission of market information during surveys and stated to be used as a part of system connected to the office. However, rejecting the assessee’s claim, Ld. AO opined that these devices would be entitled for depreciation of 15% as applicable to Plant & Machinery and accordingly, disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. 4, Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), following Tribunal’s order for AY 2012-13, directed Ld. AO to allow depreciation of 60% after necessary verification as per the decision of Tribunal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. We find that the facts as well as issues are quite identical in this year. Since a view has already been taken by coordinate bench in earlier year and the same has been followed by Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.