The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Ge Capital Business Process ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 7182 Del

$~1.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 766/2014 & CM No. 20436/2014
                                        Date of decision: 24th December, 2014
        THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV
                                                               ..... Appellant
                              Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate for
                              Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate.

                              versus

        GE CAPITAL BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT
        SERVICES PVT.LTD.                ..... Respondent
                      Through Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08 and impugns the finding

recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in

their order dated 13th April, 2012 granting depreciation @ 60% on

computers and peripherals instead of 15%, which is applicable to plant and

machinery.         The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the laptops,

printer, scanner, mouse, IBM san switches, projector, pen drive, network

equipment, router pack, desktop with monitor, visual impex etc., are all

computer peripherals and are accordingly covered under the head

'Computer and Peripherals', which are entitled to depreciation @ 60%.

ITA No. 766/2014                                                 Page 1 of 2
 The aforesaid finding is essentially a finding of fact. We also find that the

issue is covered by the decision of this Court in several cases starting from

CIT versus BSES Rajdhani Power Limited ITA No. 1266/2010, CIT

versus Citicorp Maruti Finance LImited ITA No. 1712/2010 and CIT

versus Bonanza Portfolio Limited ITA No. 833/2011. Learned counsel

for the respondent-assessee, who is present on advance notice, has drawn

our attention to another decision dated 15th December, 2011 in CIT versus

Birlasoft Limited ITA No. 1284/2011. Special Leave to Appeal filed

against the said decision was dismissed by order dated 14th February, 2014.

        We also notice that there is delay of 395 days in re-filing of the

appeal. However, as we find that the appeal on merits does not require

consideration, we are not inclined to issue notice on the said application.

Accordingly, the said application and the appeal will be treated as

dismissed.


                                       SANJIV KHANNA, J.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. DECEMBER 24, 2014 VKR