Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1578 - ITAT BANGALOREDisallowance of excess depreciation on Automated Teller Machines (ATM) by reclassifying as plant and machinery - CIT-A reclassifying ATMs as plant and machinery and restricting the depreciation to 15% - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that ATM itself has its own identity and can be used independently, but once it is connected with the computer, further information sought by the customers can also be processed. Therefore, it cannot be said to be part of a computer or computer - ATM is not eligible for higher rate of depreciation which is to be allowed to a computer. Only those devices which do not have its own identity or cannot be used independently without connecting to the computer can only be called as part of the computer for claiming higher rate of depreciation. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 652 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has categorically held that ATM is an electronic device, which allows bank’s customers to make cash withdrawals, and check their account balances at any time without the need of human teller and once it is connected to a computer, that performs the tasks requested by the person using ATMs. Therefore, we are of the considered view that that ATM is neither a computer nor a part of the computer and hence higher rate of depreciation cannot be allowed to it. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals) in this regard and we confirm the same. Higher rate of depreciation at 60% on UPS - HELD THAT:- Following the case of CIT v. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that depreciation on UPS was to be allowed @ 60%. Disallowance of depreciation on account of non-furnishing of invoices/bills for purchase of fixed assets - HELD THAT:- We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has asked the assessee to produce the bills/invoices with regard to purchase of fixed assets on which depreciation was claimed. Whatever bills were produced before the AO, AO has examined the same and allowed depreciation thereon, but on certain assets assessee could not produce the invoices/bills to prove the ownership thereof. It is settled position of law that if anyone makes any claim, the onus is upon him to place relevant evidence in support of his claim, and if he fails to do so, adverse view can be taken against him. In light of this proposition of law, we are of the view that the AO has rightly disallowed depreciation with respect to those assets for which invoices of purchases were not filed to prove the ownership. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and we confirm the same. Disallowance of certain payments after treating it to be penalty on account of infraction of law - HELD THAT:- As against certain disallowances, the nomenclatures was shown to be the penalties, but it is not clear whether penalties were paid on account of infraction of law. We are therefore of the view that the issue requires proper adjudication by the AO. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) in this regard and restore the matter to the file of AO with a direction to readjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If the AO finds that payments are compensatory in nature and not on account of infraction of law, no disallowance can be made. But if it is the penalty for infraction of law, disallowance is possible. Accordingly this ground is disposed of.
|