2020 (1) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment years 2011-12,2012- 13 & 2013-14, respectively. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals of assessee, they are heard together and being disposed together, for convenience sake. 2. M/s.Aditya Birla Money Ltd, the assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking and insurance. While making the assessments for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, the Assessing Officer (AO), inter alia restricted the depreciation on office equipment to 10% instead of 15% as claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee provided the details of items comprised under the heading 'office equipment'. On examination of them, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reakup indicates that maximum cost has been only towards different types of batteries, the appellant has not explained as to how these items will qualify for functional tests to be treated as Plant & Machinery of the appellant and it seems that the same is in the nature of Electrical fittings and installations eligible for depreciation @ 10% and not Plant & Machinery on which depreciation @ 15% is permissible is a mistake apparent from record, as the question was never put to the appellant and her assumption that they are in the nature of Electrical fittings and installations is a mistake by oversight apparent from record as the batteries referred in the order are actually UPS batteries, forming part of computers I network and hence, eligib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht an order of rectification u/s.154 from the Ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) has not disposed the petition till date. Therefore, the ld.A.R pleaded to allow all these appeals based on the binding precedence." 5. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not explained how these office equipments will qualify the functional test to be treated as plant and machinery. 6. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The relevant portions of order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 10.05.2016 (supra) is extracted as under:- "26. The second ground raised in this appeal is with regard to allowability of depreciation on office equipment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....office equipments. Depreciation rate of 10% is applicable for Furniture and Fittings falling in Block II to the above Appendix- I. Office equipments obviously and apparently falling under Block III are entitled to 15% depreciation rate. The contention of the assessing officer that the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 10% is incorrect, arbitrary and illegal and therefore, liable to be dismissed as baseless and frivolous. Hence, the assessee prays for directions to the assessing officer to allow the depreciation @ 15% on Office Equipments and render justice and other contentions of the assessing officer in this connection are dealt with as follows. In the case of assets acquired by the assessee during the previous year, proviso....