9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(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 fact that 'POS Terminal' does not come under the purview of 'Computer Software' which has been defined as 'any computer program recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device' in Note 7 to New Appendix 1 of the Income Tax Rules,1962. 2. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or withdraw any/all of the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the appeal." (B) The Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery 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 'plant and machinery' and thereby restricting the claim for depreciation on POS terminals to 15% instead of 60% as claimed by the Appellant. In appeal the Ld. AR has made an elaborate submissions and also submitted that the issue is already covered issued and that for the assessment year(s) 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, 2012-13 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, the depreciation on POS terminals has been allowed at the rate of 60% by the CIT(A) in the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced 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 to 5. 2. At the outset, the assessee would like to submit that the issue involved in present departmental appeal is squarely covered in assessee's favour as stated below: (i) Issue of disallowance of Rs 3,60,53,156/- being alleged excess depreciation claimed @ 60% on POS terminals as in Ground No. 1 is directly covered in assessee's favour by the order of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in its own case in AY 2009-10 as further explained herein below. GROUND No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.01.2019 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 Plaza Restaurant has considered the issue i.e. Higher rate of depreciation on POS TERMINALS and has upheld the decision of the Tribunal where it has been held that assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 60% on POS TERMINALS. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- "The revenue's appeal urges that a substantial question of law arises i.e. whether P.O.S. terminal, is a computer or alternatively falls within the classification of computer periphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. 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, no question is framed in this regard. ....................................... 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. " Copy of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No 600/2019 in AY 2009-10 is enclosed as Annexure-B above. 3.6 As seen from the above, Hon'ble Delhi High Court following its earlier decision in PCIT vs Connaught Plaza Restaurannt (P) Ltd - ITA No.542/2016 on similar issue has dismissed the departmental appeal and held the issue in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined 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. Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue) were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid disallowance of depreciation, amounting to Rs.3,60,53,156/- is squarely covered in assessee's favour by judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, and also by orders of Coordinate Benches of ITAT in assessee's own case vide aforesaid orders dated 07.01.2019, 30.09.2021 and 15.02.2019 of ITAT; and aforesaid order dated 09.07.2019 passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case in ITA No.600 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
