ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 199/COCH/2021Status: HeardITAT Cochin30 November 2022AY 2014-20153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on the previously disallowed excess amount by adding it to the opening WDV, provided the assessee files the necessary details. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 60% on set-top boxes, which was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the rate was applicable only for computer peripherals. The assessee accepted a 15% depreciation rate but sought to add the previously disallowed excess depreciation to the opening WDV for future depreciation claims.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the eligibility and rate of depreciation on set-top boxes. A secondary issue was the treatment of previously disallowed depreciation for future claims and the credit of TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 12-08-2021 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 19-12-2016. The ITA No.199/Coch/2021 - 2 - registry has noted minor delay of 38 days in the appeal which stand condoned considering the period of delay.

2.

The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR has controverted the arguments of Ld. AR. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

3.

The first issue in the appeal is depreciation claim on set-top boxes. The assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% for HD PDS and HD DVR which was rejected on the ground that this rate is applicable only for computer and computer peripherals. These devices, in assessee’s case, could be connected to television that facilitate recording of programmes. Accordingly, the excess depreciation claim of Rs.134.16 Lacs was disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A), following certain decision of Cochin Tribunal, confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. The assessee submitted that similar claim was disallowed in earlier years and therefore, the disallowance so made from AYs 2008-09 to 2013-14 was to be added to opening WDV and additional depreciation should be granted. The same was worked out to Rs.13.14 Lacs. However, Ld. CIT(A) refused to issue any such direction on this count. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has accepted that the applicable rate is 15% only. However, similar disallowance was made in earlier years and accordingly, the differential depreciation of 45% so disallowed is to be added to opening WDV and depreciation is granted on that portion also. The demand made by the assessee is logical since excess depreciation disallowed in earlier years should be added to opening WDV and depreciation, at one point of time, is to be - 3 - allowed to the assessee. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to allow the same with a direction to the assessee to file requisite details.

5.

In last ground, the assessee seeks TDs credit of Rs.15.03 Lacs which is reflected in Form 26AS. For the same, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to allow credit in accordance with law.

6.

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 30th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →