THE assessee company, engaged in the business of trading in Electronic recharge coupons and collection of payment of postpaid of various telecom operators, had filed its return of income for relevant AY. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee in its fixed asset schedule had shown addition during the year at Rs. 6,22,20,081/- under the block of assets "POS TERMINALS". The assessee claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.2,98,96,283/- on such POS TERMINALS. The assessee shown the POS TERMINALS as part of block of computers since they were remote access devices connected to the assessee's server through leased lines. According to the AO, POS was an electronic device and came under the category of office equipment and eligible for depreciation @ 15% under the block "plant and machinery" as against 60% depreciation claimed by the assessee treating the same as part of block of computers. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the depreciation should not be restricted to @15% under the block plant and machinery. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee the AO restricted the depreciation to 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee and made addition of Rs.2,24,22,212/-. On appeal, CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee of depreciation @ 60% on such POS TERMINALS. Aggrieved revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal.

Tribunal held that,

++ Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Connaught Plaza Restaurant had considered the issue of Higher rate of depreciation on POS TERMINALS and has upheld the decision of the Tribunal where it has been held that assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 60% on POS TERMINALS. The relevant observation of the High Court were " The revenue's appeal urges that a substantial question of law arises i.e. whether P.O.S. terminal, is a computer or alternatively falls within the classification of computer peripherals and accessories for the purpose of depreciation. This court notices that for the relevant assessment year i.e. A. Y.2008-09 even though the Assessing Officer held that the equipment was neither computer not it could be computer accessories, the CIT(A) overturned that decision and held that the assessee was entitled to 60% depreciation. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the equipment was akin to a computer. That determination has been concurred to the ITAT. Given these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no question of law, much less a substantial one arises for determination under section 260A.The appeal is therefore dismissed."; Since the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.

(See 2019-TIOL-354-ITAT-DEL)