IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1286/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(3) HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. TRINETRA SUPERRETAIL PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD (PAN AAACT 7531 Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI I B.RAMAKRISHNA DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 11 . 11 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL I S PREFERRED BY THE R E VENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) III, HYDERABAD DATED 15 TH APRIL, 2 0 14 WH E REBY HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HI G H E R RATE OF 60% ON UPS BY TREATING THE SAME AS PART OF A COMPU TE R. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, WHI C H I S ENGAGED IN TH E BU S IN E SS O F RUNNING A CHAIN OF SUP ER MARKETS. THE R E TURN O F IN C OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8.11.2007 DECL A RING A LOSS OF R S .51,47,60,780. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE FURNI S H E D BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE O F 60% APPLI C ABLE TO COMPU TE RS WAS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON UPSS. ACCO RD ING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UPS WAS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPU TE R AND TH E R E FORE, DEP RE CIATION AT TH E RATE OF 10% O N LY WAS ALLOWABLE ON UPS AS AGAINST 60% CLAIM E D BY TH E ASSESSEE . HE I TA NO. 1286/H YD/20 1 4 M/S. TRINTETRA SUPERRETAIL PVT. LT D, HYDERABAD 2 ACCO RD INGLY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR DEP RE CIATION ON UPS AT THE R ATE O F 10%, WHICH RESULTED IN A DISALLOWANCE OF R S .22, 80 ,598. ON APPEAL, T H E LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR DEP R ECI A TION AT HIGHER RATE OF 60% ON U PS RELYING IN T ER - ALIA ON THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V/S. SAMIRAN MAJUMDAR (98 ITD 119). AGGRIEVED BY THE O R DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIM E O F H E ARING BEFORE US, NONE H A S APPEARED ON BEHALF O F TH E ASSESSEE. TH E APP E AL O F TH E R E VENUE IS TH E R EF ORE, BEING DISPOSED OF EX PARTE - QUA THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE - AFT E R HEARING TH E A RGUMEN T S O F THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OB S ERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THI S A P PEAL OF THE REVENUE RELATING TO TH E ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR DEPR EC IA T ION AT HIGHER RATE O F 60% ON UPS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F A VOUR O F TH E ASSESSEE BY SEVERAL DECI S ION S OF THE T RIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS . IN ONE O F SUCH DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LTD. 56 DTR 347 (DEL), HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD T H A T UPS B E ING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPU TE R SYSTEM IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPR E C I ATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 60% AS APPL I CABL E TO THE COMPU TE R. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T H E SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT , WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNE D ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLO W IN G TH E CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 60% ON UPS AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014 I TA NO. 1286/H YD/20 1 4 M/S. TRINTETRA SUPERRETAIL PVT. LT D, HYDERABAD 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. TRINETRA SUPERRETAIL PVT. LTD., 6 - 3 - 569/2 ROCKDALE,SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) II I, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - II , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S