2018 (7) TMI 942 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on CT scan, ECG & ECG Accessories and Patient Monitoring System - @ 15% OR 40% - AR contended before us that there is no distinction between MRI scan and CT scan except creating the superior quality of images, the depreciation on the disputed items as claimed by the assessee @ 40% is allowable - Held that - Referring to relevant portion of New Appendix I governing the depreciation under Life Saving Medical Equipment at (iii) (xia) of para A it suggests that no deprecation @ 40%was provided to CT scan, ECG/ ECG Accessories and Patient Monitoring System. We find the facts and circumstances in the case of M/s Bharat Scans Pvt.Ltd. 2014 (2) TMI 1150 - ITAT CHENNAI as rightly pointed by Ld.DR, in our opinion, is not applicable with the facts and circumstances of the present case. As discussed and opined above that CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the AO and it requires no interference from us - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of depreciation @ 40% on CT scan, ECG & ECG Accessories, and Patient Monitoring System against AO's decision to allow depreciation @ 15%.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Private Limited Company, contested the depreciation rate set by the AO at 15% on certain medical equipment, contrary to the claimed 40%. The AO raised concerns regarding the classification of the equipment as Life Saving Medical Equipment, leading to the disallowance of a significant amount from the total income. The appellant argued that the disputed items were crucial for medical imaging and patient care, justifying the higher depreciation rate. However, both the AO and CIT(A) held that the items in question did not fall under the category of Life Saving Medical Equipment as per the New Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The appellant further argued that the functionality and significance of CT scan were equivalent to MRI scan, which was considered a Life Saving Medical Equipment. They referenced a Co-ordinate Bench order from ITAT Chennai, emphasizing the importance of CT scans in diagnosing and treating critical conditions like cancer and heart diseases. The appellant's representative contended that denying the same status to CT scan as MRI scan was erroneous and insisted on the 40% depreciation claim. However, the DR supported the decisions of the AO and CIT(A), asserting that CT scan did not qualify as Life Saving Medical Equipment, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's grounds.

Upon reviewing the arguments and examining the relevant provisions of New Appendix I governing depreciation rates for medical equipment, the Tribunal found no basis to overturn the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that the specific items in question, including CT scan, ECG, and Patient Monitoring System, were not listed for 40% depreciation under Life Saving Medical Equipment. Drawing a distinction between the functionality of MRI and CT scans, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition made by the AO, ultimately dismissing the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the AO's decision regarding the depreciation rates for the disputed medical equipment. The appeal was dismissed, and the original order was upheld, emphasizing the adherence to the prescribed rules and classifications for depreciation rates in such cases.