Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 439 - HC - Income TaxExpenditure incurred on lease hold property for improvements - revenue or capital expenditure - expenditure towards purchase of workstations, improvement of interiors and electrical works, fee paid to the architect, cabling work for networking of computers in connection with setting up of office - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the assessee had taken the premises on lease for a period of three years and had incurred expenditure for improvements in the lease premises. The premises did not belong to the assessee and the expenditure did not bring into existence any capital asset for the assessee. The expenses were incurred for conducting the business of the assessee more profitably and more successfully. The assessee therefore, got the business advantage and therefore, the tribunal has rightly treated the expenses incurred as revenue expenditure incurred for improvement in leasehold property as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on ATM - whether ATMs are computers and are eligible for 60% depreciation? - HELD THAT:- The tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of DCIT VS. DATA CRAFT INDIA LTD. [2010 (7) TMI 642 - ITAT, MUMBAI] has held that so long as functions of the computers are performed with other functions and other functions are dependant on the functions of the computer, ATMs are to be treated as computers and are entitled to higher rate of depreciation. It has further been held that computer is integral part of ATM machine and on the basis of information processed by the computer in ATM machine only, the mechanical function of the dispensation of cash or deposit of cash is done. Therefore, it was held that ATMs are computers and are entitled to higher rate of depreciation. Change in method of accounting - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.[2008 (2) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in every case of substitution of one method by another method it has been held that burden is on the department to prove that the method in vogue is not correct and distorts the profit of a particular year. From perusal of the order passed by the assessing officer as well Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is evident that revenue has failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that the assessee is entitled to change the method of accounting.
|