ACIT -CC-4(4), MUMBAI MUMBAI vs PRIME FOCUS LIMITED MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ सी” , मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI Įी ͪवकास अवèथी, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एंव Įी एम बालागनेश, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M.

BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं.

6133/मुं/2019 ( Ǔन.व.20 12-13) ITA NO.6133/MUM/2019 (A.Y.

2012-13) ACIT, CC-4(4), Room No.

1922, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ...... अपीलाथȸ /Appellant बनाम Vs.

M/s Prime Focus Ltd.

Prima Focus House, Opp.

Citybank, Linking Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052.

PAN: AAACP6811B ..... ĤǓतवादȣ/Respondent अपीलाथȸ ɮवारा/ Appellant by : Ms.

Shreekala Pardeshi ĤǓतवादȣ ɮवारा/Respondent by : None सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ/ Date of hearing : 05/08/2021 घोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ/ Date of pronouncement : 30/08/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] dated 14.06.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2 ITA NO.6133/MUM/2019 (A.Y.

2012-13) 2.

The solitary issue raised in the present appeal is against the assessee’s claim for depreciation at the rate of 60% on Plant & Machinery.

The assessee has claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.

18.60 crores at the rate of 60% on Plant & Machinery (computer based items).

During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) restricted assessee’s claim of depreciation on Plant & Machinery which is in the nature of computers to 15%.

The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim in full by following the order of his predecessor in AY 2011-12.

The CIT(A) further observed that the AO has himself allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer base items in AY 2014-15.

3.

Ms.

15.

Shreekala Pardeshi representing the Department fairly admitted that the assessee’s claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% was allowed by the CIT(A) in the preceding AY and in succeeding AY the AO has allowed the claim of depreciation in full.

4.

Submissions made by ld.

DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined.

The assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% on computer based equipment, which was restricted to 15% by the AO.

In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee in full after following the order of First Appellate Authority for AY 2011-12.

It is further observed that the AO has himself allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 60% on computer based equipment in AY 2014-15.

From perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that the issue is perennial.

In AY 2005-06, 2007-08 and AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 the CIT(A) had allowed assessee’s similar claim of depreciation on computer based equipments.

In appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of First Appellate Authority.

3 ITA NO.6133/MUM/2019 (A.Y.

2012-13) 5.

We find no infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, sans merit.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 30th day of August, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (M.

BALAGANESH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, Ǒदनांक/Dated: 30/08/2021 SK, PS ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/The Appellant , 2. ĤǓतवादȣ/ The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयुÈत(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुÈत CIT 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आय.अपी.अͬध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड[ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt.

Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai