Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, which is directed against an order dated 31.10.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer peripheral devices like printers, scanners and UPS.
Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that computer peripheral devices like printers, scanners and UPS could not be considered as equivalent to computers. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee, during the relevant previous year had addition of �2,59,22,165/- under the head ‘’computers’’ and a part of such addition comprised of printers, scanners and UPS. Contention of the ld. Departmental Representative was that assessee had claimed depreciation of �57,47,216/- on such items at the rate of 60% available to computers, whereas what was allowable was only �14,36,804/- at the rate of 15% available for ‘’office equipment’’.
Contention of the ld. DR was that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in deleting the disallowance of �43,10,412/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer, on the enhanced depreciation claimed for printers, scanners and UPS. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not correct in relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd, 358 ITR 47 and giving relief to the assessee.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
We have perused the orders and heard the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative. It is not disputed that depreciation claimed by the assessee at the rate of 60%, which was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer were on UPS, scanners and printers. It is also not disputed that these were used as peripherals to the computer.
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd (supra), wherein it was held that computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and servers formed integral part of computer system and were entitled for 60% depreciation. We are of the view that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd (supra) in holding that assessee was eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60% on UPS, scanners and printers. In taking this view, we are also roboranted by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinamalar vs. ITO, 389 ITR 94, wherein their lordships upheld the order of the lower authorities allowing depreciation on items like cannon lide, scanner, sisco router, modem at the rate of 60% available to computers. Their lordship had accepted the claim of higher depreciation on cannon lide, scanner, sisco router and mode, while holding that such higher rate of depreciation would not be available to items like computerised counting and stacking machine. View taken was that former items were integral to the computer systems whereas latter item was an independent one. Considering all these, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 5.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 16th day of July, 2018, at Chennai.