BHARAT EMBROIDERIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the rate of depreciation allowable on UPS.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation on Stabilizers/transformers and UPS @ 80%. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) allowing depreciation accordingly. Thereafter, notice u/s 154 was issued pursuant to which the order leading to the filing of the instant appeal, was passed. In this order, the AO allowed depreciation @ 80% on Stabilizers and 60% on UPS by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that depreciation on UPS ought to have been allowed at 80%.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no controversy on the allowing of depreciation @ 80% on stabilizers. The only quarrel is on the rate at which depreciation ought to have been allowed on UPS. Whereas the assessee claimed depreciation @ 80% on UPS, the AO restricted such depreciation u/s 154 to 60% by relying on the judgment in the CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. 2010–TIOL-636-HC-DEL-IT, and the ld. CIT(A) restricted it to 15%. In my considered opinion, when there is a direct judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.(supra) allowing depreciation @ 60% on UPS, there can be no other second view either restricting this rate of depreciation to 15% or enhancing it to 80%. Overturning the impugned order, I direct to allow depreciation on UPS @ 60%.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.