TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii) ITA No.71/11-12/LTU(A) for the assessment year 2008-09 & iii) ITA No.2/13-14/LTU(A) for the assessment year 2009-10 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA & Section 250 of the Act. Since the issues and grounds for all these three appeals are identical, they are disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue has raised five elaborate grounds for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 and three elaborate grounds for the assessment year 2009-10,. All these grounds for all the three appeals are concised herein below for adjudication:- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) had erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 60% on UPS, treating it as part of computers for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer had observed that the assessee had included UPS under the block of assets "computer & software" and thus had claimed depreciation @ 60%. Ld. Assessing Officer opined that UPS is not a part of computer and it can be only treated as Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) equipment for electrical appliances. The Ld. Assessing Officer had relied on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nesly India Ltd. Vs. DCIT in 111 TTJ 498 and decision of the case of CIT (A) LTU Chennai Vs. M/s.Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd., in ITA No.70/2007-08/LTU(A) dated 29.08.2008 wherein UPS was treated as a part of general plant and machinery. By holding so, the Ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed the excess claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y confront before us with any other decision in support of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, following the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, we hereby hold that UPS is to be treated as part of the computer and the depreciation is to be allowed accordingly, thereby we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee 5. Ground No.2 Applicability of Sec.40 (a)(i) of the Act with respect to reimbursement of communication expenses paid to non-residents and expenditure on managing sales affairs outside India. A. Reimbursement of communication expenses:- During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Chennai ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Raj Television Network Limited [ITA No.1827 & 1828/Mds/1998]. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the aforesaid payments made by the assessee falls under the ambit of Sec.9(1)(vi) of the Act as royalty and since the payments were made without deduction of TDS for both the assessment years invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the amount of Rs. 19,86,662/- and Rs. 29,99,356/- was disallowed for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. B. Expenditure on managing sales affairs outside India It was also observed by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had made payments for Rs. 1,00,93,603/-, R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Bombay in the case of Director of Income-tax,(IT)-1 V. WNS Global Services (UK) Ltd. in [2013] 32 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.) held that: "So far as Questions (4)& (5) are concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order followed its order in the matter of WNS North America Inc rendered on 25th November, 2011. The Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT (A) held that the amount of Rs. 2.93 Crores was received by the Respondent-Assessee as reimbursement of lease line charges and would not classify either as royalty or as income attributed to a Permanent Establishment in India. The Respondent-Assessee has obtained from an international Telecom Operator lease line on payment of charges. These lease line facility in turn is provided to WNS In....