9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect of the matter. Treatment of subsidy received from the Government of Goa - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- Subsidy received by the respondent/assessee was an incentive given to establish an industrial unit in a backward area and, thus, generate employment for local inhabitants, we cannot but agree with the Tribunal and CIT(A) that the subsidy, indeed, was a capital receipt. Similarly, insofar as the other limb of the issue is concerned, we agree with the Tribunal that the measure for calculating the subsidy, which was 25% of the fixed capital cost, cannot determine the purpose for which the subsidy was given, and, thus, as directed by CIT(A), adjusted proportionately against the cost of the assets. Since the subsidy in this case was not intended as a payment to meet, directly or indirectly, a part of the cost of the assets, no adjustment could have been ordered, as was directed by CIT(A). The Tribunal, on this score, in our view, reached the correct conclusion. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Advocate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature and to reduce the same from [the] block of assets on a proportionate basis, especially when a classificatory amendment has been made w.e.f. AY 2016-17?.. 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, does not dispute the fact that insofar as the proposed question no. (i) is concerned, it is covered by the decision dated 11.05.2011 of the coordinate bench of this court rendered in ITA 662/2005. Via this decision, appellant/revenue s appeal was dismissed. 2.1 Likewise, insofar as proposed question nos. (ii) and (iv) are concerned, they are covered by our decision dated 17.05.2023 rendered in ITA 281/2023. Via the aforesaid judgement, we concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and thus, sustained the view taken by the Tribunal. 2.2 Therefore, what we are required to express our view on, insofar as this appeal is concerned, are the question nos. (iii) and (v), as proposed by the appellant/revenue. 3. Thus, before we proceed further, the following broad facts are required to be noticed to render a decision in this appeal: 3.1 In the AY in issue, the respondent/assessee had filed a Return of Income [in short, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on UPS. 7.1 We may note that while proposing the question of law, which, to say the least, is ineptly framed, for it seeks to suggest that the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del), titled CIT v BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. was overruled by the Madras High Court, the appellant/revenue lost sight of the fact that its stand before the Tribunal was that this issue was covered against it by the decision of the coordinate bench of this court. This is evident on a plain reading of paragraph 5.1 (which is part of the submissions advanced by the departmental representative) and paragraph 7.5 (which forms part of the Tribunal s reasoning) of the impugned order: 5.1 With respect to ground No. 3 of the Department s appeal, the Ld. CIT-DR again fairly accepted that the issue was covered against the Department by the order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court as far as the depreciation on UPS was concerned. xxx xxx xxx 7.5 Ground No. 3 of the Department s appeal challenges the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,152/- made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the claim of depreciation in respect of UPS from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unlike the peripherals mentioned in BSES Rajdhani Power and other judgements, noticed above. 10. We may note that this argument is advanced without a factual foundation. There is nothing on record to suggest that the UPS equipment, in this case, was used for purposes other than running a computer. 10.1 UPS equipment, as the acronym goes, is a piece of equipment which ensures that there is an uninterrupted power supply, to prevent loss of data in the event of a power outage. If anything is crucial to the working of a computer, it is UPS equipment, which ensures that important data that is being handled or dealt with by the user is not lost on account of sudden power failure. 10.2 However, we may clarify that, by this, we do not intend to suggest that any and every piece of equipment which, generally, acts as a UPS contraption, say for an industrial unit, and in this context also supports a computer system would fall in this category and thus be amenable to depreciation at the rate of 60%, as against the rate provided in the residuary entry which is 15%. 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain a question of law concerning this aspect of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
