Tribunal rules on depreciation rates for ATMs and UPS, remands penalty examination.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the lower depreciation rate for Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) as electronic devices, not computers, restricting depreciation to 15%. However, it allowed higher depreciation for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) as part of the computer system at 60%. The disallowance of depreciation due to non-furnishing of invoices for fixed assets was upheld. The issue of expenditure in the nature of penalty was remanded for further examination to determine if the payments were compensatory or penalties for infractions of the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of excess depreciation on Automated Teller Machines (ATM) by reclassifying as plant and machinery.
2. Disallowance of excess depreciation on UPS by reclassifying as plant and machinery.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on account of non-furnishing of invoices/bills for purchase of fixed assets.
4. Disallowance of expenditure in the nature of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation on Automated Teller Machines (ATM) by Reclassifying as Plant and Machinery:
The assessee argued that ATMs should be classified as computers and thus eligible for higher depreciation at 60%. The assessee relied on precedents from the Bombay High Court and ITAT decisions which classified ATMs as computers due to their dependency on computers for functionality. However, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes held that ATMs are electronic devices, not computers, as they operate independently and only connect to computers for specific tasks. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that ATMs have their own identity and cannot be classified as part of a computer. Thus, the CIT(A)'s order restricting depreciation to 15% was confirmed.

2. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation on UPS by Reclassifying as Plant and Machinery:
The assessee contended that UPS should be treated as part of the computer system and eligible for 60% depreciation. The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. and other cases had ruled in favor of treating UPS as part of the computer system. Since no contrary judgment was presented by the revenue, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow 60% depreciation on UPS.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Account of Non-furnishing of Invoices/Bills for Purchase of Fixed Assets:
The assessee argued that they had furnished 73% of the invoices and that the remaining should be accepted based on the sample provided. The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to produce all relevant invoices to prove ownership of assets. Since the assessee failed to furnish invoices for certain assets, the AO was justified in disallowing depreciation for those assets. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

4. Disallowance of Expenditure in the Nature of Penalty:
The assessee claimed that certain payments treated as penalties were compensatory in nature. The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether these payments were penalties for infraction of law or compensatory. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication, directing that if payments are found to be compensatory and not penalties for infraction of law, no disallowance should be made.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal confirming the lower depreciation rate for ATMs, allowing higher depreciation for UPS, upholding the disallowance of depreciation due to non-furnishing of invoices, and remanding the issue of penalty-related disallowances for further examination.

---