Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on Routers - at the rate of 25% OR 60% - Whether router is a part of computer Or Not - Assessing Officer examined the difference between the computer and routers and according to him, router is a tele-communication device - HELD THAT:- The computer has not been defined under the Income-tax Act. But, the computer system had been explained in Explanation for the purpose of clause (ix) of section 36(1) of the I.T. Act. According to this Explanation, computer system means, a device or a collection of devices including input and output support devices and excluding calculators which are not programmable and capable of being used in conjunction with external files or more of which contain computer programmes, electronic instructions, input data and output data that performs functions including, but not limited to logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval communication and control. The computer network is also defined under this Act and according to it, a computer network means, the inter-connection of one or more computers through the use of satellite, microwave terrestrial line or other communication media. Undisputedly, a router is used to provide a connectivity between the computers and also to process the data from one computer to another. A router of its own does not perform logical, arithmetical or memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optic impulses. Without a router, a computer can independently work and perform all functions. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee did not filed complete text of computer network. He has tried to draw an inference from the definition of computer given in this Act that the router is a part of computer system and not a computer network. Since the depreciation is to be allowed only on the computer and not the computer system and in any case a router cannot be called to be the part of the computer, we are not convinced with the arguments raised by the assessee. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has made a detailed analysis and distinction between the computer and the routers. We, therefore, of the view that lower authorities have rightly adjudicated the issues by holding that router is not a part of computer and is not eligible for depreciation @ 60 per cent. We, accordingly, confirm the Order of the CIT(A). In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|