TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been stated that it can be inferred that the machines computer printers under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that it should be treated as part of the computer and an accessory to the Computer. This factual finding cannot be dislodged by us, as no material has been placed by the Revenue before this Court. The claim by the assessee at 60% is acceptable. Thus, for the above reasons, we find that since in respect of percentage on depreciation claimed in respect of the very same machinery has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nters would be included within the term 'computer' as contained in old Appendix I Clause III(5). The said entry states that computers including computer software are eligible for depreciation at 60% on written down value. The assessing officer, while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the printers are not the normal printers, but they are high value printers used for printing banners and advertisement materials of large sizes and cannot be treated as a peripheral to a computer and the printer purchased by the petitioner cannot perform any other function as performed by a normal computer. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation at 60% was denied. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer reported in (2016) 97 CCH 0004 ChenHC. 7. We need not labour much to answer the substantial question of law, which has arisen for consideration in the instant case, as in the assessee's own case, the question has been decided in favour of the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue, viz., T.C.(A) No.867 of 2014, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 18.11.2014. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: 4.The issue that arises for consideration is whether the printing machinery, namely printer and scanner, should be treated as an integral part of computer and eligible for 60% depreciation as against 25% as indicated by the Department. There is no dispute on the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointing out that the 'entry' to be interpreted is in a taxing statute; full effect should be given to all words used therein and if a particular article would fall within a description, by the force of words used, it is impermissible to ignore the description, and denote the article under another entry, by a process of reasoning. 10. It was further pointed out that the rule of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio is a well-established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. 11. By applying the rule of interpretation, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factual finding cannot be dislodged by us, as no material has been placed by the Revenue before this Court. 14. Above all, we should bear in mind, it is a claim for depreciation and if two views are possible, one which is in favour of the assessee should be preferred. 15. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision in the case of Dinamalar (supra). We find the case arose out of a different factual matrix and the question of law, which fell for consideration before the Division Bench was whether the claim made by the assessee for depreciation at 80% against the Control Panel Board and transformer by classifying it under head B , Instrumentation and Monitoring System for monitoring energy flows, in the depreciation table Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
