Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... com Ltd. (2013 (12) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT) supports the case of the assessee, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), more specifically when, no contrary decision was brought to our notice. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of excess claim of depreciation on printers, UPS and other accessories - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server etc, are integral part of computer, therefore, eligible for depreciation at higher rate. See DCIT vs Datacraft India Ltd. (2010 (7) TMI 642 - ITAT, MUMBAI), DCIT vs BTA Cellcom Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 127 - ITAT, New Delhi), M/s Weizmann Ltd. vs DCIT (2013 (12) TMI 779 - ITAT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the relevant finding recorded in the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority for ready reference:- 7. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee, Undisputedly, it is a payment of interest on delayed payment of license fee which is in dispute. The license fee itself is not in dispute, whereas, assessee has claimed ha license fee has already been allowed as revenue expenditure to the assessee in the original assessment order and even in reopened assessment, it remained allowed, Therefore, assessee has claimed that in no case interest can be held a capital in nature. But assessee has further claimed that even if the license fee is treated as capital expenditure, interest on delayed payment of licence fee is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ness of the assessee and it is not capital expenditure, but allowable as revenue expenditure, even if license fee is treated as capital expenditure, whereas, in the case of the assessee licence fee has been allowed as revenue expenditure. Respectfully following the decision of Hon ble ITAT in the above mentioned case of Fascel Ltd. the addition of Rs,69,79,000/- on account of interest on delayed payment of-license fee is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 2.1. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsels, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), more specifically when, no contrary decision was brought to our notice. This ground of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 3. The next ground pertains to deleting the addition of ₹ 15,01,908/- on account of excess claim of depreciation on printers, UPS and other accessories. The crux of argument on behalf of the Revenue is identical to the ground raised by contending that the accessories are part of power supply system and not of computer system, therefore, not entitled to higher rate of depreciation. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material avail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the decisions relied by the assessee A.O. is directed to allow depreciation @ 60% on such items consisting of UPS, Printers Scanners and other items which are integral part of computers after verification. In result, the ground of appeal is treated as allowed. 3.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ratio laid down in DCIT vs Datacraft India Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 295 (Mum)(SB), DCIT vs BTA Cellcom Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates