https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270915 UPS attached to computers is treated as part of the computer system for depreciation purposes and is eligible only for the rate applicable to computers, so the claim for higher depreciation as an energy-saving device was rejected. Deduction under section 10B was denied because the required board approval had not been obtained. The alternative claim under section 10A was remanded for fresh examination, since eligibility could not be rejected solely because the unit was registered with STPI rather than SEZ and the statutory conditions for software technology park undertakings required proper scrutiny. The related issue of whether section 40(a)(ia) disallowance should be added back in computing section 10A deduction was also remanded. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:54:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270915 UPS attached to computers is treated as part of the computer system for depreciation purposes and is eligible only for the rate applicable to computers, so the claim for higher depreciation as an energy-saving device was rejected. Deduction under section 10B was denied because the required board approval had not been obtained. The alternative claim under section 10A was remanded for fresh examination, since eligibility could not be rejected solely because the unit was registered with STPI rather than SEZ and the statutory conditions for software technology park undertakings required proper scrutiny. The related issue of whether section 40(a)(ia) disallowance should be added back in computing section 10A deduction was also remanded. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270915