TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] in ITA no. 2020/DEL/2014. 1.1 This order has been passed in the cross-appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue and the respondent/assessee which emerged out of the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. 1.2 Being dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/revenue has preferred the instant appeal, wherein, it has proposed the following questions for our consideration: "..(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Hon'ble ITAT is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,01,74,000/- made by AO, on account of disallowance of license fee? (ii) Whether in the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en made w.e.f. AY 2016-17?.." 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, does not dispute the fact that insofar as the proposed question no. (i) is concerned, it is covered by the decision dated 11.05.2011 of the coordinate bench of this court rendered in ITA 662/2005. Via this decision, appellant/revenue's appeal was dismissed. 2.1 Likewise, insofar as proposed question nos. (ii) and (iv) are concerned, they are covered by our decision dated 17.05.2023 rendered in ITA 281/2023. Via the aforesaid judgement, we concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and thus, sustained the view taken by the Tribunal. 2.2 Therefore, what we are required to express our view on, insofar as thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpt dividend income as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, read with 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 [in short, "Rules"], depreciation claimed on UPS and energy saving and pollution control devices. 4.1 However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 8,01,12,224/- concerning interest awarded to the respondent/assessee under Section 244A of the Act. 4.2 Insofar as the subsidy that the respondent/assessee had received from the Government of Goa amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- is concerned, CIT(A), while agreeing that it was a capital receipt, directed reduction of the same from the block of assets, albeit, on a proportionate basis. In other words, CIT(A) treated the subsidy as an incentive received for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment's appeal challenges the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,152/- made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the claim of depreciation in respect of UPS from 60% to 15%. The Ld. CTR-DR as fairly accepted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited in ITA No. 1266/2010 vide order dated 31.08.2010 and CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. vide order dated 31.08.2010. It is seen that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that UPS is to be considered as an integral part of the computers and depreciation is to be allowed @ 60%. Accordingly, in view of the settled legal position, we find no reason to inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2010) wherein it was held that the depreciation @ 60% on such items shall be allowed." [Emphasis is ours] 9. Mr Maratha, however, sought to distinguish the judgement in BSES Rajdhani Power on the ground that the UPS equipment could be used for purposes other than running a computer and, therefore, is not an integral part of the computer, unlike the peripherals mentioned in BSES Rajdhani Power and other judgements, noticed above. 10. We may note that this argument is advanced without a factual foundation. There is nothing on record to suggest that the UPS equipment, in this case, was used for purposes other than running a computer. 10.1 UPS equipment, as the acronym goes, is a piece of equipment which ensures that there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital receipt and gone on to rule that it cannot be adjusted against the block of assets, for the reason that it was not a sum paid to the respondent/assessee to meet, directly or indirectly, any part of the actual cost of the subject asset(s). 13.1 The Tribunal, thus, distinguished between the measure adopted for calculating the quantum of subsidy and the purpose for which the subsidy was granted to the respondent/assessee. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v P.J. Chemicals Ltd, 1994 210 ITR 830 (SC). 13.2 Qua the first limb of the issue, i.e., of the nature of the receipt, as noticed above, the Tribunal sustained the finding of fact returned by the CIT(A), who, in suppo....