2015 (6) TMI 840 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories - 60% or 25% - Held that - The issue has been settled by the Hon ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Expeditors International India (P) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 2008 (8) TMI 399 - ITAT DELHI-F , wherein it has been held that the peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server, etc. form integral part of the computer and the same, therefore, are eligible for depreciation at a higher rate as applicable to a computer @ 60%.- Decided in favour of assessee. Expenses incurred on advertisement - Treated as capital in nature by AO being 30% of ₹ 26,56,245/- as it would give enduring benefit to the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - There was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), who relied on the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs CIT 1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court and Alembic Chemicals Works Company Ltd. vs CIT, 1989 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of advertisement, sales promotion, and publicity expenses as capital in nature.
2. Percentage of depreciation allowable on computer peripherals.
3. Transfer of appeals from Delhi to Mumbai.

Issue 1: Treatment of Advertisement Expenses:
The department appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of advertisement expenses as capital in nature. The AO had treated a portion of the expenses as capital, arguing they would provide enduring benefit. However, the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that such expenses are revenue in nature and do not ensure enduring benefit. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. and Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., emphasizing that the test of enduring benefit is not conclusive and must consider the specific circumstances of each case. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Supreme Court's rulings and dismissed the department's appeal.

Issue 2: Depreciation on Computer Peripherals:
The dispute revolved around the percentage of depreciation allowable on computer peripherals. The AO allowed only 25% depreciation, while the assessee claimed 60%. The CIT(A) supported the assessee's claim, stating that computer peripherals are integral to a computer system and should be eligible for higher depreciation rates. Citing precedents from the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal and the Hon'ble Calcutta Tribunal, the CIT(A) directed the depreciation to be allowed at 60%. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it reasonable and in line with the law and precedents, and rejected the department's appeal.

Issue 3: Transfer of Appeals:
The appeals were initially filed with the ITAT, Delhi Benches, but were transferred to ITAT, Mumbai Benches, upon the assessee's request due to the transfer of records from Delhi to Mumbai. The cases were heard in Mumbai in 2014. As the issues in both appeals were common, they were disposed of through a common order for convenience. The ITAT considered the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively, and dismissed the department's appeals in both cases.

This detailed analysis summarizes the legal judgment involving the treatment of advertisement expenses, depreciation on computer peripherals, and the transfer of appeals between ITAT benches, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues and the decisions rendered by the authorities.