2016 (1) TMI 707 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of depreciation on UPS - assessee claimed at 80% whereas Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed 60% - Held that - No infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the depreciation on UPS to 60% as the UPS systems are required for operations of the computers. Hence the UPS becomes part and parcel of the computer systems once they are attached to the computers. Hence they are legible for depreciation @ 60% being the depreciation available for computers. - Decided against assessee Eligibility for deduction under section 10A - Held that - On going through the provisions of section 10A and sub-clause 2(i)(b) and also sub-section (2)(i) (c) of section 10A, we find considerable force in the submissions of the counsel for the assessee. We are of the view that Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have completely overlooked the provisions in rejecting the claim of the assessee that it is not entitled for deduction under section 10A of the Act. Thus, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for thorough examination and decide the issue in accordance with law i.e. whether the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10A of the Act or not.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2010-11.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
3. Nature of software expenses claimed.
4. Depreciation rate on UPS.
5. Eligibility for deduction under sections 10B and 10A.
6. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) to be added to business profits.

Issue 1: Appeal against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Order:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11. The grounds raised by the assessee included challenges to the legality, jurisdiction, and fairness of the Commissioner's order.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, but as no arguments were presented, the ground was dismissed for lack of substantiation.

Issue 3: Nature of Software Expenses:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the software expenses claimed by the appellant were capital in nature. The ground related to this issue was not pressed by the counsel and was dismissed accordingly.

Issue 4: Depreciation Rate on UPS:
Regarding the claim of depreciation on UPS, the Commissioner upheld the depreciation rate at 60% instead of the 80% claimed by the appellant. This decision was based on precedents and rulings establishing that UPS forms part of computer systems and is eligible for depreciation at 60%.

Issue 5: Eligibility for Deduction under Sections 10B and 10A:
The Commissioner rejected the claim for deduction under section 10B as the approval from the "Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee" was not obtained, a prerequisite for such deduction. The alternative claim for deduction under section 10A was also dismissed as the assessee's unit was registered with STPI and not under SEZ, rendering it ineligible for section 10A deduction. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument based on specific provisions of section 10A and directed a thorough re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 6: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to be added to Business Profits:
The disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) was not challenged in appeal. Still, the Tribunal, after restoring the issue of deduction under section 10A to the Assessing Officer, directed a fresh consideration of this disallowance in line with the decision of the Bombay High Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a detailed reassessment by the Assessing Officer on specific issues related to depreciation, deductions under sections 10B and 10A, and disallowances under section 40(a)(ia).

← Previous Next →