BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details of office equipment to the AO. Relying on a previous decision for a similar issue, the Tribunal held that the office equipment should be classified as plant and machinery eligible for higher depreciation.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on office equipment at 15%, but the AO classified it as furniture and fittings, allowing only 10% depreciation. The assessee argued that office equipment qualifies as plant and machinery and provided details, but the AO disallowed the differential depreciation.
What were the issues?
Whether office equipment should be classified as 'plant and machinery' for higher depreciation or 'furniture and fittings' for lower depreciation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 32(1)(j)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Vijaya Bank v. CIT392 citing323 ITR 166 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT353 citing320 ITR 577 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari40 citing130 ITR 95 · 1981 · HC
- CIT v. Subrata Dutta Choudhary7 citing197 Taxmann 71 · 2011 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: Both appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “DCIT”), Circle-1(1)(2),
ITA No. 931/Ahd/2015 & 448/Ahd/2016 Hagglunds Drives (India) Pvt. Lt
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026