9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 458 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation - Composite purchase of various assets - Held that the hardware under question, involved in the execution of the printing processes by the assessee, does not qualify to be categorized as computers and, thus, not eligible for a higher rate of depreciation in its respect. Claim of abour charges - services provided by the supplier of goods - Payment without TDS - dis allowance u/s 40(a)(ia)- As such, it is difficult to say that the contract is for the supply of labour or for work, and would rather fall to be categorized as one for purchase of goods, though on which some labour work stands performed - The assessee is buying goods in the processed form, and it is not the Revenue s case that material stands bought in the unprocessed form at first stage and then given for job work - There is no finding in the present case by any of the authorities below quo existence of a separate contract in respect of labour work - Disallowance made by AO deleted.
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of labour charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Depreciation Allowance under Section 32 The first issue concerns the assessee's claim for depreciation allowance on plant and machinery, which was initially claimed at Rs. 8,48,111/- but restricted by the Assessing Officer (AO) to Rs. 3,53,379/-. The AO's disallowance was based on the verification of purchase bills, revealing that the machinery was a composite of various individual units, such as computer software modules, air conditioners, UPS, and printers. The AO classified these as specialized machines for designing and printing rather than computers or computer software, applying a standard depreciation rate of 25% for plant and machinery. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the AO's findings. The assessee contended that the machinery should be classified as computers, eligible for a higher depreciation rate, citing decisions in ITO v. Samiran Majumdar and DCIT v. Rajasthan Patrika (P.) Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not press its claim regarding the air-conditioner and UPS and confirmed that these cannot be considered as computers or computer software. For the remaining items (Dainippon Screen, Electronic Plate Processor, and K Rite 510), the Tribunal examined the definitions of "computer" and "computer software" under the Act and common usage. The Tribunal concluded that these items are specialized machines used in the printing process and do not qualify as computers. The Tribunal noted that while these machines might use microprocessor-based technology, they are used primarily for their specialized functions in printing rather than their computing capabilities. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to apply the standard depreciation rate for plant and machinery. Issue 2: Disallowance of Labour Charges under Section 40(a)(ia) The second issue involved the disallowance of labour charges amounting to Rs. 46,59,627/-, where Rs. 29,90,153/- was found to represent purchases included under labour charges, and Rs. 12,57,078/- was for printing materials and binding charges. The AO estimated the labour component at Rs. 3,50,000/- and disallowed this amount under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, finding the AO's estimation reasonable. Upon appeal, the Tribunal considered the nature of the transactions and found that the expenditure was primarily for the purchase of goods, which included some labour component. The Tribunal reasoned that the contract was for the purchase of processed goods rather than for the supply of labour or work. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194C, which necessitate tax deduction at source for labour contracts, were not applicable. The Tribunal referenced decisions by the Supreme Court in ACC Ltd v. CIT and Birla Cement Works v. CBDT, which supported the view that such transactions should be classified as purchases rather than labour contracts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming the lower authorities' decision on the depreciation allowance issue and setting aside the disallowance of labour charges.
|
