TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable to other normal plant and machinery. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Nationalized Bank and Central Public Sector Undertaking. The assessee, e-filed its return of income for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 on 31.10.2006 and 28.09.2009, declaring total income of Rs.. NIL under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act and book profit of Rs..404,81,33,910/- for the assessment year 2006-07 and Rs..1220,40,10,460/- for the assessment year 2008-09 under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] . The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 on 31.12.2008 and for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, for the assessment 2006-07, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 13.03.2013 and in response to the notice, the assessee has filed revised return on 10.04.2013 and furnished various details called for. After verifying the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made various additions and completed the assessment under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment years under appeal. 8. After hearing both sides, we find that similar issue on identical facts has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessees own case for earlier assessment years vide Tribunal's order dated 30.11.2015, wherein, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: "12. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Regarding allowability of 60% depreciation on the ATMs, the Assessing Officer has observed that the ATMs is different type of machine, different from those of computers and allowed depreciation @ 15% only as applicable to plant and machinery. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Venture Infortech Global (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 25 SOT 184 (Mum), wherein the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has held that higher rate of depreciation of @ 60% to ATM cannot be allowed., However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, by filing copy of the order of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, at page 221 in the paper book, in the case of DCIT v. Global Trust Bank Limited in ITA No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nication device that allows bank's customers to access the bank at places other than the normal bank without having to take the trouble to go to the bank in person and collect the cash as is done under the conventional method of withdrawing money from the bank. The ATM machines are computerized machines which not only allow the customers to withdraw money but they can check the account balance, pay bills, purchase goods and services, and therefore, unless it is computerized and linked with the main server, it is not possible to operate the ATM. 8. The LAN equipment is called Local Area Network equipment which is part of the computer hardware which enables for a group of computers and associated computer devices to share the data through this device. In other words, the data is stored at single computer processor or server and all the other computers are connected through local area network equipment and the single processor can be accessed by the other computers and the data stored is used by the other computers. 9. The WAN equipment is called Wide Area Network, meaning, two or more LAN would form a WAN i.e. to cover large geographical area. The computer network is done b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on UPS @ 60%. The ld. DR has relied on the decision of the Delhi Benches of ITAT in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT 111 TTJ 498. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2015 in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and prayed that the same may be followed. 13. After hearing both sides, we find that similar issue on identical facts has been considered in the Revenue's appeals in I.T.A. No. 2124 & 2125/Mds/2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 in assessee's own case by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its common order dated 30.11.2015, wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: "20. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to allowability of 60% depreciation on the UPS, the Assessing Officer has held that these cannot be treated as computer restricted the claim of depreciation to 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by following the decision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08 is dismissed." 14. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal or filed any higher Court decision having modified or reversed the above decision of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years vide its common order dated 30.11.2015, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. 15. The second common ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue relates to deletion of disallowance made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Similar ground has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal in I.T.A. Nos. 2124/Mds/2014, 2125/Mds/2014 & 2126/Mds/2014 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2010-11, wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: "29. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The ld. CIT(A), after examining the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the point of calculation of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches, therefore the said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 4.1.3 We have considered the rival contentions and relevant records. At the outset, we find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of City Union Bank Ltd supra considered and adjudicated this issue in para 8 as under: "We have duly consider the rival contentions and the material on record. We have perused Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As per the said rule, the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches have to be computed by taking the amounts of advances made by each rural branch as outstanding at the end of the last day of each month comprised in the previous year. Thus, it is clear that there is no provision to consider only the advances made during the year under consideration. It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has furnished the working as per Rule 6ABA. It Is not in dispute that the working is as per Rule 6ABA but the Assessing Officer seems to have interpreted the provision not warranted by law. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of ....