What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, respectfully following the Bombay High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The High Court had held that depreciation on ATMs should be allowed at 60% as part of the computer block.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on ATMs at 60%, whereas the AO had allowed only 15%. The assessee claimed depreciation on ATMs as part of the computer block.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether ATMs qualify for depreciation at 60% as part of the computer block or at 15% as plant and machinery.

DCIT vs Saraswat Infotechltd, Navi Mumbai | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Suthar, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Suthar, AR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND ASHWANI TANEJA, AM (A.Y:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax M/s Saraswat Infotech Ltd. 15(3)(2) Room No. 451, 4th Floor, 3rd Floor, Madhshree, Plot Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. No.85, District Business Mumbai-20 Centre, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 .. Appellant Respondent Revenue by .. Miss. Arju Garodia, DR .. Assessee by Shri Ashok Suthar, AR Date of hearing .. 22-11-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 22-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-24, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-24/DCIT-10(3)/IT-303/13-14 dated 30-12-2014. The Assessment was framed by DCIT-10(3), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 13-01-2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in allowing depreciation on ATM @ 60% as against allowed by AO at 15%. For this Revenue has raised following ground No.1 as under: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that depreciation on ATM is allowable @60% ignoring the fact that ATM is a cash dispensing machine with a projector and therefore is in nature of plant and machinery and therefore depreciation should be provided @15%.”

3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of Hon’ble High Court judgement in assessee’s own case in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1243 of 2012 dated 15-01-2013 in the case of CIT Vs. Saraswat Infotech Ltd. We have gone through the judgment and find that the first question was considered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court as under:

“a) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in holding that depreciation on UPS is allowable @ 60% ignoring the fact that UPS is an electrical appliance for temporary supply of electricity therefore is 15%.” And discuss the facts as under: -

The respondent assessee is a subsidiary of Saraswant Co. op. Bank Ltd and provides software development, information technology and enabled services to its holding company i.e. Saraswat Bank. During the course of the year, the respondent assessee had purchased certain capital assets such as UPS, ATM Machine and Software License to inter alia provide technology services to its holding company. The respondent assessee claimed depreciation on UPS and ATM machines under the block of computers @ 60% while depreciation was claimed on software @ 30% (50% or 60%) in view of use only for a part of the year. The AO was of the view that the UPS and ATMs would not fall under the category of computers and being part of plant and machinery/office equipment would be eligible for depreciation only at 15%. Similarly, he disallowed the claim for depreciation on software license on the ground that the same was not put to use in the previous year to the A.Y. 2008-09. Consequently, the excess claim of depreciation made by the respondent assessee was disallowed.

And final answer above question in favor of assessee as under: - “We note that the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact on all the three questions. The revenue has not been able to show that the above finding of fact is perverse. Thus we do not see any reason to entertain question (i),(ii) and (iii) above.”

Respectfully following Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case, we dismiss this appeal of Revenue.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-11-2016.

Sd/ Sd/ (ASHWANI TANEJA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 22-11-2016 Sudip Sarkar /Sr.PS

DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SARASWAT INFOTECHLTD, NAVI MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments