Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 984 - ITAT DELHIDepreciation - Payment of customs duty - whether customs duty paid is an ascertained/crystallised liability? - CIT(A) allowed claim of assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee has made the payment of customs duty only when the liability has accrued on it. Since the customs duty has been paid to acquire the plant and machinery and therefore, it has to be capitalised, moreover, there is no dispute to the fact that such expenditure cannot be capitalised as observed by the Assessing Officer - The obligation to pay the excise duty arose during the impugned year and therefore, the liability to pay the amount had accrued to the assessee during the year itself and the said liability cannot be said to be contingent and cannot be said to be an advance payment. The order of CIT (Appeals) is a reasoned order, who has rightly accepted the contention and explanation of the assessee and has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee for capitalisation of the payment of excise duty - ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. Expenditure incurred on glow sign boards - capital or revenue in nature - Whether it does not bring into existence an asset or advantage of enduring benefit, which is attributable to the capital? - HELD THAT:- As arguments made by assessee have been found to be convincing that the glow sign board requires frequent replacement and expenditure does not bring into existence an asset of enduring in nature. The judgment of Liberty Group Marketing Division [2008 (4) TMI 219 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] supports such views that expenditure incurred on glow sign boards does not bring into existence any asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business and such asset is not of enduring nature and therefore, such expenditure has to be treated as revenue in nature Thus ground No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed. Excess depreciation claim on UPS - @ 60% or 25% - whether UPS integral part of computer - HELD THAT:- The learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision in the case of Expeditors International (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2008 (8) TMI 399 - ITAT DELHI-F], wherein it has been held that the UPS is an integral part of the computer and is eligible for depreciation. Therefore depreciation at the rate of 60 percent is allowed to the assessee. No infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) and moreover, no contrary decision has been brought on record by the learned Departmental representative. Thus, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed.
|