TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are projected on the big screen in the race course ground. These are part of the display system controlled by computers. In view of that, we find merit in assessee’s contentions. Following the precedence on the issue, as relied on by assessee in various cases, we uphold assessee’s contentions that the display system was entitled for depreciation at 60%. If at all Revenue want to examine the Rate of depreciation, the same could have been examined in AY. 2008-09 i.e., when the said asset was purchased and included in the block of the assets. Since assessee was already getting depreciation at 60%, on the principles of consistency depreciation 60% is to be allowed in the impugned assessment years as well. In view of that, AO is directed to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions of the Tribunal and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. When appealed, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance stating as under: 4.1 I have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee and the facts of the case. Ground. No. 1 relates to adhoc disallowance of 15% of race winning payments of less than 2,500/- amounting to ₹ 52,64,73,818/- the Assessing Officer has observed that an amount of ₹ 350,98,25,431/- was paid as betting prize money for which no details of payees could be furnished by the assessee. Hence, in the absence of details the genuineness of payments was unverifiable and hence adhoc disallowance @ 15% amounting to ₹ 52,64,73,818/- was made. During the course of appellate pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the assessee. In the latest order passed for the A Y 2008-09 in ITA No. 120/Hyd/2012 dt. 16.07.2012. the Tribunal following its earlier order deleted the addition by observing as under.- 5. We have held the arguments of both the parties, perused the record and gone through the orders of the authorities below, We find that this issue is covered by the order of the ITAT, Hyderabad benches in assessee's own case for A Y 2007-08 vide in ITA No. 1425/Hyd/2011 vide pages 2 to 11 of the order and at para 8, the Tribunal held as follows: We find the earlier order of the ITAT have elaborately dealt with the issue The Department has not brought anything to show that the facts of the case are any different from that for the A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdictional ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the adhoc disallowance of ₹ 52,64,73,818/- is deleted . 2.1. Similar order was passed in AY. 2011-12. Revenue is aggrieved on the above issue and raised the following grounds, which are similar in both the years: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is corrects in following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in deleting the disallowance of 15% of expenditure of ad-hoc basis without appreciating the fact that there is a lack of evidence supporting the payments allegedly made (upto a limit of ₹ 2,500/- 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in following the order of the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeals, the issue is that AO has reduced the depreciation rate claimed at 60% to 15%. Assessee claimed depreciation at 60% on electronic display system which was considered as electronic equipment by the AO. Assessee contended that electronic display system is an inseparable part of the computer system designed and operated to display the computer results of the horse racing events. Assessee relied on the following case law in support of its contentions: i. Crabtree India Ltd., (2010) [38 SOT 479 (Delhi)]; ii. Expeditors International (India)(P) Ltd., (2008) [118 TTJ 652 (Delhi Tribunal)]; iii. Orient Ceramics Industries Ltd., [358 ITR 49] (Delhi High Court); iv. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd [ITA No. 1267 dt. 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record the original invoices, claim of deprecation in earlier years and the orders of the authorities to substantiate that these assets were allowed depreciation at 60% in earlier years. 5. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the orders on record, we are of the opinion that action of the AO is not justied. If the depreciation was allowed at 60%, categorising such equipment as computer systems in earlier years on 2008-09 and 2009-10, AO cannot re-classify them in the block of assets concept in a later year. He is bound to grant depreciation at 60% only. Apart from that even though the assets involved is a display system, which can be categorised as a computer monitor as the results are projected on the big screen i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
