TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the A.O of depreciation claimed by the appellant under the head computers, sub head printer for Rs. 22,72,510/- being 60% deprecation amount as application on computer peripheral and not plant and machinery as treated by the A.O who has allowed a depreciation of Rs. 15% on the same instead of 6-5 as claimed by the appellant." 4. Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee is an individual having business of import, export and trading of computer printers and computer components and derived income from the same alongwith house property. He filed his return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 20,37,090/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 31,92,409/- under the head 'depreciation'. In the balance sheet under the head 'fixed asset', there is a sub head 'printer' wherein the assessee has shown addition of Rs. 50,61,465/- and claimed depreciation of Rs. 30,37,129/- @ 60% on such printer. The A.O, therefore, asked the assessee to justify the claim of deprecation @ 60@ on such printers. The assessee submitted a copy of bill of the same issued by MS Caldron Graphics wherein descript....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is not a block at which the depreciation could be charged as per the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, again asked the assessee to justify the rate of depreciation charged on the printing machine/printer @ 60%. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the A.O disallowed the claim of depreciation @ 60% and instead, allowed deprecation @ 15%. While doing so, he observed that the claim of depreciation by treating the product as computer peripheral is not justified. According to him, to decide the real character of the asset nomenclature is not important. What is significant is to truly examine the character of asset from its actual usage point of view and not the name of the asset per se. He held that the asset in question was in the nature of plant and machinery used by the assessee as office equipment for the purpose of demonstration and exhibitions. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on nomenclature of the machine as printer. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Container Corporation of India LTD Vs. ACIT reported in [2009] 30 SOT 284 [Del], it was argued that the assessee is entitled to depr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in [2001] 247 ITR 0268, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. City Corp Maruti Finance Ltd vide ITA No. 1712/2010 and 1714/2010 order dated 29.11.2010, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that computer accessories and peripherals like printer are eligible for depreciation @ 60%. 14. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cannaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd Vs. DIT in ITA No. 5466/DEL/2013 order dated 01.09.2014, he submitted that the Tribunal held that Point of Sales [POS] are eligible for depreciation @ 60%. 15. Referring to the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Expeditors International [India] P. Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT reported at [2008] 118 TTJ 0652 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server etc form integral part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that that the printer has been used by the assessee for the purposes of its business. It is also admitted fact that the printer cannot function without the command from the computer. Therefore, merely because the cost of the printer is abnormally high, the same, in our opinion, cannot be ground to deny higher rate of deprecation @ 60%. 18. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna powers Ltd [supra], while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal allowing higher rate of deprecation @ 60% on computer accessories and peripherals has observed as under: "However, upon a perusal of the file, we find that the higher rate of depreciation was allowed both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) "CIT(A)"] and the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal in its impugned order has observed as under :- "The issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of Coordinate of the Tribunal as discussed below:- In the case of ITO vs. Samiran Majumdar (2006) 98 ITD 119 (Kol.), ITAT Tata Bench „B‟, has taken a view that the printer and scanner ....