9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADEE NATH MISSHRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Praveen Kumar, Authorized Representative Respondent by : Ms. Garima Sharma, Senior Departmental Representative ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)", for short], dated 15.10.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.3,60,53,156/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed at a higher rate of 60% on POS Terminals by the assessee despite the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) also followed the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" for short) in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year(s) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "5. Ground of Appeal No.1 pertains to the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.3,60,53,156/- by applying the rate of depreciation @ 15% rather than @ 60% on Point of Sales ("POS") terminals by treating them as normal plant and machinery rather than computers as claimed by the Appellant. 5.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the Ld. AR. The AO made disallowance of Rs.3,60,53,156/- by reclassifying the POS terminals from the block of 'computers' to the block of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ITAT: order dated 07.01.2019 in ITA No.3812/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10; order dated 30.09.2021 in ITA No.5467/Del/2016 for Asst. Year 2007-08; and also order dated 15.02.2019 in ITA No.3765 and 3766/Del/2015 for Assessment Year(s) 2008-09 and 2010-11; these orders having been passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT, Delhi in the assessee's own case. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted a brief synopsis, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "1. In supplement to oral submissions being made, the assessee respectfully submits a brief synopsis as under. The Assessee also relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and assessee's written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) as quoted in his order at Page No.4 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court has allowed the relief to the assessee respectfully following the earlier decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.). Extracts from the order of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AY 2009-10 3.4 Hon'ble ITAT while dismissing the departmental appeal in AY 2009-10, vide para 8 & 9 held as under. Copy of said Hon'ble ITAT order dated 07.01.2019 in ITA No 3812/DEL/2015 in AY 2009-10 is enclosed as Annexure-A above "8. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Connaught ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Hon'ble Delhi High Court which too was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Relevant extract of the Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 09.07.2019 in ITA No 600/2019 is as under: "2. Two questions are sought to be urged by the Revenue. The first concerns the ITAT upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] deleting the disallowance of depreciation claimed at a higher rate of 60% on point of service (POS) terminals by the Assessee. 3. As far as this question is concerned, the issue stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of this Court dated 20th September, 2016 in ITA No. 542/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.). Consequently, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-08 are enclosed Annexure-C, Annexure-D and Annexure-E respectively. 3.8 The facts in the present year under appeal and departmental grounds therein are similar to facts and departmental grounds AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. 3.9 In view of the above, the matter is squarely covered by the Judicial Precedents of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case and other cases and also covered by the orders of Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, therefore the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this year also deserves to be sustained and the appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed." (B.2) At the time of hearing before us, the representatives of both sides (Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee as well as the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
