9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1543 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on ATMs - @ 60% or 15% - Held that - As decided in assessee e own case 2013 (1) TMI 861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ATM cannot function without the help of computer and would be a part of the computer used in the banking industry - hence depreciation at 60% is allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Depreciation rate on ATM machine Analysis: The appeal in question pertains to the depreciation rate applicable to an ATM machine. The primary issue raised by the Revenue was the allowance of depreciation at 60% by the CIT(A) as opposed to the 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The crux of the matter revolved around whether an ATM should be categorized as a cash dispensing machine with a projector or as plant and machinery, thus impacting the depreciation rate. The appellant, relying on a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court in a similar case involving UPS, argued for the higher depreciation rate. The High Court had previously considered a case where depreciation on UPS was allowed at 60% despite being categorized as plant and machinery. The respondent in the present case, a subsidiary of a bank, had purchased various assets including UPS, ATM machines, and software licenses to provide technology services. The AO had disallowed the higher depreciation claim on the grounds that UPS and ATMs should be depreciated at 15% as they were part of plant and machinery. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and the previous judgment, concluded in favor of the assessee. It noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any perversity in the Tribunal's findings on the matter. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, aligning with the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case involving the same assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the higher depreciation rate of 60% for the ATM machine, following the principles established in the earlier judgment and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was pronounced on 22-11-2016.
|
