2017 (12) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Higher depreciation @ 60% on CCTV cameras and Control access systems - assessee claimed higher rate of depreciation on the above said items on the plea that they form part of computer systems - Held that - As decided in CIT Vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd 2010 (11) TMI 802 - Delhi High Court and CIT Vs. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd (2011 (8) TMI 1058 - DELHI HIGH COURT) to decide the issue that the computer peripherals are eligible for higher rate of depreciation. Also as submitted that the Control access systems and CCTV cameras are peripherals attached to computer systems only and their operation and control is done through computers only is acceptable. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow depreciation at higher rate as applicable to computers. Miscellaneous expenditure disallowed - assessee did not furnish the details that were called for by the AO - Held that - With regard to the amount of ₹ 7.30 lakhs, the assessee cannot be said to have completely discharged the responsibility. At the same time, we cannot fully disallow the said claim, since the expenditure was of routine nature type like travelling, conveyance etc. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the disallowance may be restricted to 25% of the amount of ₹ 7.30 lakhs in order to take care of deficiencies and other disallowable nature of expenses. In our view, this will put this issue at rest. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance out of miscellaneous expenses to 25% of ₹ 7.30 lakhs. We order accordingly. Nature of expenditure - expenditure relating to purchase of know-how - revenue or capital - Held that - CIT(A) noticed that identical payments made by the assessee has been allowed by his predecessor in the assessee s own case in AY 2000-01 to 2006-07 2016 (8) TMI 1309 - ITAT MUMBAI . Also the assessee has earned service fee of ₹ 40.51 crores and in the course of earning the same, the assessee has incurred impugned expenditure, which mainly consisted of payments made to various consultants. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) correctly held that the impugned payments have been incurred in the normal course of business and accordingly deleted the disallowance. Disallowance made u/s 14A - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case the year under consideration being AY 2007-08, the provisions of Rule 8D will not apply as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . He also noticed that the Tribunal had disallowed only to the extent of 5% of the dividend income u/s 14A of the Act in AY 2002-03. Accordingly he directed the AO to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at 5% of the dividend income. Disallowance to repair expenses - Held that - CIT(A) has examined the details of repair expenses on test check basis and has given a clear finding that they represent routine repair expenses incurred by the assessee. Before us, the revenue could not produce any material to contradict the finding given by Ld CIT(A). Hence, we do not have any other option but to confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

Issues:
1. Claim of higher depreciation on CCTV cameras and control access systems.
2. Partial disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure.
3. Expenditure relating to purchase of know-how.
4. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
5. Disallowance of repair expenses.
6. Relief granted in respect of miscellaneous expenditure.
7. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AY 2009-10.

Issue 1: Claim of Higher Depreciation on CCTV Cameras and Control Access Systems

The assessee claimed higher depreciation on CCTV cameras and control access systems, arguing they form part of computer systems. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the claim. The Tribunal noted that an identical issue was decided in favor of the assessee by the Delhi SMC bench of ITAT, supported by decisions of the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the CCTV cameras and control access systems are peripherals of computer systems, allowing higher depreciation.

Issue 2: Partial Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenditure

The AO disallowed miscellaneous expenditure as details were not furnished, but the CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred by cheque. The Tribunal found that the assessee furnished details for a significant amount, which was allowed. However, for the remaining amount, the Tribunal held the assessee responsible to prove the claim. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 25% of the remaining amount, considering the nature of expenses, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

Issue 3: Expenditure Relating to Purchase of Know-How

The AO disallowed consultancy charges as capital expenditure, but the CIT(A) allowed it, considering it incurred in the normal course of business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on consistency with earlier Tribunal orders in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act

For AY 2007-08, the AO computed disallowance under Rule 8D, but the CIT(A) restricted it to 5% of dividend income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, citing precedents where similar disallowances were made. The Tribunal confirmed the order, finding it consistent with previous decisions.

Issue 5: Disallowance of Repair Expenses

The AO disallowed repair expenses as capital in nature, but the CIT(A) allowed them as routine expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of contradictory evidence from the revenue.

Issue 6: Relief Granted in Respect of Miscellaneous Expenditure

The Tribunal confirmed the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure, as discussed earlier.

Issue 7: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AY 2009-10

The AO computed disallowance under Rule 8D, but the CIT(A) restricted it to 5% of dividend income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, considering the absence of fresh investments and own funds exceeding investments. The Tribunal confirmed the order, finding the 5% disallowance sufficient under Sec. 14A of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the detailed analysis and decisions rendered on each issue.

← Previous Next →