TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms CIT(A) decisions on depreciation, interest, Section 14A, and lease rental</h1> <h3>The ACIT, Circle-2 (1) Chandigarh Versus Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd. And Vice Versa</h3> The ACIT, Circle-2 (1) Chandigarh Versus Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd. And Vice Versa - TMI Issues Involved:1. Depreciation on Set Top Boxes (STBs)2. Disallowance of interest attributable to work in progress3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act4. Lease rental on set top boxesIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Depreciation on Set Top Boxes (STBs):The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on STBs, arguing that STBs should be treated as 'plant and machinery' with a depreciation rate of 15%. The CIT(A) followed the Chandigarh ITAT's decisions for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16, which classified STBs as computers eligible for 60% depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the facts and issues were identical to previous years where the higher depreciation rate was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the economic life of STBs, as per TRAI guidelines and the assessee's own statements, was three years, justifying the higher depreciation rate.2. Disallowance of interest attributable to work in progress:The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 9,89,077/- related to interest attributable to work in progress. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, following the ITAT's decisions for earlier years, which held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had adequate interest-free reserves and own funds to cover the capital work in progress, consistent with previous rulings.3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,83,17,325/- disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, despite the assessee not earning any exempt income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the ITAT's decisions for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, reiterating that the issue was covered by multiple High Court rulings and previous ITAT decisions favoring the assessee.4. Lease rental on set top boxes:The assessee's cross-objection related to the disallowance of lease rental on STBs taken on lease from Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's disallowance, following the ITAT's decisions for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16, which classified the lease as a finance arrangement rather than an operational lease. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the lease agreement was essentially a financing arrangement, and the assessee was entitled to claim interest paid as expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), but not the principal component as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, consistent with previous ITAT rulings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial decisions where facts and issues remain unchanged across assessment years.
TaxTMI 