Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.T

144 STC 59Reported decision2006#14914 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 153A Section 170(2)Section 292BB

Judgments citing Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.T

DCIT-3(4), Mum vs. M/S Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 530/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…013 with effect from 1 April 2014." "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing higher Depreciation @ 60% on ATMs in view of the decision by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2006) 144 STC 59 Kar holding that ATM is not a Computer and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. State Bank of Patiala, 70 taxmann.com 36 (SC), CO No. 46/Mum/2023 ; A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7723 of 2016 dated April 25th, 2…

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 1109/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2015-16 & 2014-15 Union Bank of India, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Circle-2(1), Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mangaluru. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. PAN – AAACC 724 5 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT & 235/Pan/2018 Assessment year : 2015-16 & 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Union Bank of India, Circle-2(1), (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mangaluru. Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point,…

Financial Software & Systemes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2127/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 143(3)

…machine falling within the meaning of ‘’computer’’ qualifying for depreciation @60% ITA Nos.2126 &27 /2019 :- 4 -: by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Diebold Systems (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of C.T. (2006) 144 STC 59, under Karnataka VAT Act, 2003. 6. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 7. is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended before us that the issue i…

Financial Software & Systemes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2126/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Shri. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 143(3)

Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7251/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 413/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17) Writer Safegaurd Prviate Limited Deputy Commissione R Of Income 105, Pn Writer Building, Dr. Babasaheb Tax-15(3)(1), Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400033 Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…dering the fact that the ATM machines are in nature of Computer and depreciation is claimed @ 60%. 3.0. The Hon CIT-(A) erred in relying on the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Diebold Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd v/s Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (144 STC 59 Kar) for restricting the deprecation on ATM machine @15% without considering the decision of Jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in case of Sarswat Infotech Ltd (ITA No. 1243 of 2012) wherein the deprecation on ATM machines was allowed @60% treating the same as Computer and the Appellant had relied on the same during the course of scrutiny a…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibicen K. Mathew, CIT(DR)

…l in the case of DCIT v. Global Trust Bank Ltd. in ITA No.474/Del/2009 dated 20.4.2011. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR has contended that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported at 144 STC 59 Kar has held that an ATM is an electronic device, which allows bank’s customers to make cash withdrawals, and check their account balances at any time without the need of human teller, probably that most widely used means of “electronic funds transfer”. Therefore, ATM is not a computer by itself and it is connected to a computer that performs the…