https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355171 The appeal contested the disallowance of a depreciation claim on a film projector by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer argued for a lower depreciation rate, classifying the projector as "Plant & Machinery" rather than a computer. Despite the appellant's assertion that the projector was part of a computer system, the authorities upheld the lower rate, emphasizing the projector's primary function as projecting images. The ITAT, following precedent, ruled the film projector did not qualify as a computer for higher depreciation, affirming the decision below. The case underscores the importance of accurate asset classification for depreciation and the primary function of a machine in determining eligibility for specific rates. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:34:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355171 The appeal contested the disallowance of a depreciation claim on a film projector by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer argued for a lower depreciation rate, classifying the projector as "Plant & Machinery" rather than a computer. Despite the appellant's assertion that the projector was part of a computer system, the authorities upheld the lower rate, emphasizing the projector's primary function as projecting images. The ITAT, following precedent, ruled the film projector did not qualify as a computer for higher depreciation, affirming the decision below. The case underscores the importance of accurate asset classification for depreciation and the primary function of a machine in determining eligibility for specific rates. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355171