TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are as under: "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.3,60,53,156/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed at a higher rate of 60% on POS Terminals by the assessee despite the fact that 'POS Terminal' does not come under the purview of 'Computer Software' which has been defined as 'any computer program recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device' in Note 7 to New Appendix 1 of the Income Tax Rules,1962. 2. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or withdraw any/all of the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the appeal." (B) The Assessment Order u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es ("POS") terminals by treating them as normal plant and machinery rather than computers as claimed by the Appellant. 5.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the Ld. AR. The AO made disallowance of Rs.3,60,53,156/- by reclassifying the POS terminals from the block of 'computers' to the block of 'plant and machinery' and thereby restricting the claim for depreciation on POS terminals to 15% instead of 60% as claimed by the Appellant. In appeal the Ld. AR has made an elaborate submissions and also submitted that the issue is already covered issued and that for the assessment year(s) 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, 2012-13 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, the depreciation on POS terminal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee also submitted a brief synopsis, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "1. In supplement to oral submissions being made, the assessee respectfully submits a brief synopsis as under. The Assessee also relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and assessee's written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) as quoted in his order at Page No.4 to 5. 2. At the outset, the assessee would like to submit that the issue involved in present departmental appeal is squarely covered in assessee's favour as stated below: (i) Issue of disallowance of Rs 3,60,53,156/- being alleged excess depreciation claimed @ 60% on POS terminals as in Ground No. 1 is directly covered in assessee's favour by the order of Jurisdictional H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble ITAT while dismissing the departmental appeal in AY 2009-10, vide para 8 & 9 held as under. Copy of said Hon'ble ITAT order dated 07.01.2019 in ITA No 3812/DEL/2015 in AY 2009-10 is enclosed as Annexure-A above "8. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Connaught Plaza Restaurant has considered the issue i.e. Higher rate of depreciation on POS TERMINALS and has upheld the decision of the Tribunal where it has been held that assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 60% on POS TERMINALS. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- "The revenue's appeal urges that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] deleting the disallowance of depreciation claimed at a higher rate of 60% on point of service (POS) terminals by the Assessee. 3. As far as this question is concerned, the issue stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of this Court dated 20th September, 2016 in ITA No. 542/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.). Consequently, no question is framed in this regard. ....................................... 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. " Copy of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No 600/2019 in AY 2009-10 is enclosed as Annexure-B above. 3.6 As seen from the abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Precedents of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case and other cases and also covered by the orders of Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, therefore the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this year also deserves to be sustained and the appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed." (B.2) At the time of hearing before us, the representatives of both sides (Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee as well as the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue) were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid disallowance of depreciation, amounting to Rs.3,60,53,156/- is squarely covered in assessee's favour by judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, and also by orders of Coordina....