TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 2,82,03,771/-made on account of depreciation on Computer Software. ii) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to the assessee by directing to delete the disallowance of depreciation on Computer Software, solely relying on the stand of the Assessing Officer in the assessee's case in preceding year without going into the merits of the case and ignoring that the principle of resjudicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. iii) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice and further the reasons for reopening of the assessment were provided to the assessee vide office letter dated 24.07.2015. Subsequently, notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act were issued in respect of disputed issue of claim of excess depreciation on Tangible Assets. The assessee filed explanations mentioning that in the earlier assessment proceedings, the revenue has accepted the claim of depreciation rate. Whereas in the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the submissions of the assessee company are not satisfactory and was of the opinion that the licenses acquired by the assessee for day-to-day business activities are to be treated as intangible asset as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, the A.O. has allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed that the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in directing depreciation @60% rate on the computer software licenses, but actually rate applicable is @25% and the license has to be treated as intangible assets. Whereas, the Ld.AR submitted that the nature of payment is for obtaining the license of computer software and has enduring benefits and is eligible for higher rate of depreciation under the Income Tax Rules and supported the arguments with the judicial decisions. We find the Ld.CIT (A) has dealt on the disputed issue at para 6.2.1 to 6.2.4 of the order which is read as under:- "6.2.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant company submitted that in the return of income, the depreciation on computer software was claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eafter. reasons for second reopening were asked by the appellant and in the second reopening depreciation on computer software was granted @ 25% applicable to intangible assets instead of at 60% attributable to computer software. 6.2.2 The appellant company further pointed out that in the next year, that is, AY 2009-10, the Assessing Officer raised a similar query on the rate applicable to - computer software and after due consideration the Ld. AC allowed depreciation @ 60% as claimed. 6.2.3 Further, the appellant stated that this issue being examined in earlier years and also in later year and was allowed in the original assessment as well as in the first reassessment proceedings and now sought to be disturbed in the seco....