TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 83,49,188/- claimed u/s 32 of the Act made by Assessing Officer. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. At the outset, we find that the assessee also filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the ld. CIT(A),which was adjourned to 6th August, 2011 on the request of learned AR on behalf of the assessee. Both the parties agreed that the issue in the present appeal is not connected with the issue in the appeal filed by the assessee and accordingly, the Bench proceeded to dispose of the appeal, consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... integral part of the computer system, therefore, they are to be treated as computer for the purposes of allowing higher rate of depreciation i.e. 60% and accordingly, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this account. The grounds taken by the revenue are, therefore, rejected. In the case of ACIT Vs. CITI Corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. (2009) (2010-TIOL-36)(Delhi) the Hon ble ITAT has held as under: On considering the submissions of both the parties and going through the orders of tax authorities below, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) by relying upon the decision of Hon ble ITAT in the case of Simorn Majumdar (supra has rightly allowed the depreciation @60% as claimed by the assessee and so the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. in I.T. Appeal no. 1266 (Delhi) of 2010.Inter alia, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee relied upon the decisions in CIT Vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd.: I.T.A. No.1712/2010 1714/2010; CIT Vs. M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd.: I.T.A. No.833 of 2011; Container Corp. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax: (2009) 30 SOT 284 (Delhi); Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(4), New Delhi Vs. Omni Globe Information Technologies India (P) Ltd.: (2011) 131 ITD 280 (Delhi); Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT: (2008) 118 TTJ (Delhi) 652; DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd.: (2010) 133 TTJ 377 and; Income Tax Officer Vs. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(2009) 30 SOT 284 (Delhi) and Expeditors International India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl, CIT ,118 TTJ(Del.) 652 The Mumbai Special Bench in their decision dated July 9, 2010 in DCIT v. Datacraft India Ltd., in ITA nos. 7462 754/Mum/2007, held that routers and switches are to be included in the block of `Computer entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60%. In another decision dated 9.11.2010, Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Citycorp Maruti Finance Ltd. in ITA nos. 1712 1714/2010 followed their own decision in BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd.(supra) and upheld the view of the ITAT, allowing depreciation @60% on computer accessories and peripherals like printers etc. .A similar view was taken in Bonanza Portfolio Ltd.(supra) by the Hon ble jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
