2012 (3) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that depreciation on computer peripherals a) Work Station, UPS and b) Server Rack is allowable @ 35% as applicable to Plant & Machinery & @ 1% as applicable to Furniture & Fixture respectively instead of 60% as applicable to the computer. 02. That the appellant may please be permitted to amend or alter any of the foregoing grounds or to adduce any additional ground at or before the time of hearing." 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of commercial vehicles, two wheelers and gears. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2009. 3. The only issue involved in the grounds of appeal is restricting the rate of depreciation on (i) work station; (ii) UPS; and (iii) server rack. 4. During th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ork station is not to be allowed at 60% and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of above is upheld. 3. UPS : The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi bench in the case of Nestle India Ltd V/S DCIT (ITAT, Del) 111 TTJ 498 has held that UPS is not an integral part of computer and is only an alternate source of supply of power to computer, therefore higher rate of depreciation is not allowable. Respectfully following the same, the action of the A.O is upheld. 5. Server Rack : Steel server rack has been explained to be a special rack created to cover the server/computer. To my mind server rack cannot be said to form integral part of the computer system. The said racks have been explained to be needed to be cover the computer system. The said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in the case of CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. 6. We have heard both the sides on the issue and also perused the records. As far as the rate of depreciation on UPS is concerned, it is covered by decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Ceramics & Inds. Limited, cited supra had held as under :- "13. The third issue pertaining to depreciation on UPS arises only in the Assessment Year 2005-06. The assessee had claimed depreciation on UPS @ 60% whereas the A.O had allowed it @ 25% and on this basis, disallowance of '1,470 was made. The issue now stands covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v....