Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Indian Bank on 24 August, 2021
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
Indian Bank
Corporate Office, Accounts Department,
No.254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench,
dated 22.01.2016 in I.T.A.No.1910/Mds/2015, Assessment Year 2006-07.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan
for M/s.G.Baskar
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan for
M/s.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for brevity) is directed against the order dated
22.01.2016 made in I.T.A.No.1910/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench (“the Tribunal” for brevity) for the
Assessment Year 2006-07.
3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial questions
of law in this appeal :
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating
the Auto Teller Machines ATMs as computers which are
eligible for depreciation at 60% under section 32 of the
Income Tax Act?
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in granting
depreciation at the rate of 60% on UPS especially when
the same is eligible for depreciation at 15% only as
applicable to plant and machinery as per depreciation
Table stated in Appendix-I provided in the Income Tax
Rules?
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
higher rate of depreciation is to be allowed on UPS
which is not an Integral part of the Computer but only a
machine which stores power for the purpose of using
such stored power cuts providing uninterrupted power
supply and is energy storing device classifiable under
Plant and Machinery only?
4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in granting
excess depreciation on UPS stating the same is part of
the computer hardwares?
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
5.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing
the appeal of the Revenue on deduction u/s.36[1][viia] of
the Act, when the relied upon decision in the case of
Lakshmi Vilas Bank has been set aside to the file of
Assessing Officer for fresh consideration?”
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that
the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the Low Tax
Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the
Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for
filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to
Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than
the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeal is
dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial
questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in this case
is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to
the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
and decided on merits. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
24.08.2021
(2/4)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle II (2), Chennai.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mkn
T.C.A.No.615 of 2016
24.08.2021
(2/4)
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
