2018 (5) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that printers are eligible for 60% depreciation, when the entry in the depreciation table specifically says, computers including computer software" 3. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.1170/Mds/2007 and 2015/Mds/2006 dated 16.11.2007, for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2003-04 respectively. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, dated 29.06.2006 and 13.02.2007. 4. The issues, which fell for consideration were whether the depreciation claimed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 249. 5. Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the Revenue strenuously contended that the equipment, which was imported by the petitioner and used by them, is not a normal printer and printer having not been defined under the old appendix (referred supra), the assessing officer was right in rejecting the claim of depreciation at 60%. 6. With regard to how an entry has to be interpreted, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 80 STC 167. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon&#3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fer from the said finding of fact. Further more, we find that this issue is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises for consideration in this Tax Case (Appeal). Accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs." 8. From the aforementioned decision, we find, the Division Bench noted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, which was affirmed by the Tribunal and the orders passed by the Tribunal are challenged in the appeals before us. Therefore, we deem it fit and appropriate to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. The decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. (supra) explains as to how an entry has to be interpreted in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the petitioner, we have to take a decision. 12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on examining the manner in which the equipment functions by way of video demonstration, recorded that the printer cannot be used without a computer, that is, it is part of the computer system. 13. In paragraph 6 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it has been stated that it can be inferred that the machines computer printers under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that it sho....