Ita/621/2016 Of State Bank Of Mysore v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JUNE 20271 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR BETWEEN: LT.A. NCO.621 OF 2016 STATE BANK OF MYSOREHEAD OFFICE P.B.NO.9/2/7MYSORE BANK CIRCLE|K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009|REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORMR. N. KRISHNAMACHARI. ... APPELLAN| (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND* THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF _INCOME TAX |LARGE TAXPAYER UNITS BANGALORE. .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.05.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1063/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200/7 08, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE,TRIBUNALPASSEDIN|LIANO.1063/BANG/2014DATED 2/.05.27016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2OO/-08 TO THE EXTENTQUESTIONED HEREIN & ETC.| THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (nereinafter referred to as the Act for short)nas been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08.The appeal was admitted by a bencn of this Court on thefollowing substantial questions of law: “(1) the Tribunal was correct in holding|that an ATM which performs the functions ofa computer such as input, process andoutput, could not be considered as a‘Computer’OT|‘ComputerSystem ‘OFComputer Terminal or Computer PeripneralDevice’.fortheDUrDpOSeofClaimingdepreciation under the Act at 60%? (ii) the Tribunal was Justified in placing|rellance on tne decision rendered in tnecontext of AIM under tne Kernetaka Sales Tax.Act,195)|("KSTAct”)fromtheperspective of classification of ATM under the.entry list provided in KST Act which tsinvoked In the event of ‘sale’ of such ATMwithout considering the aspect of usage ofATM as mandated under section 37 of theAct? (iii) the Tribunal, having regard to'nature of banking business and quantum oftransactions in relation to procurement ofcapital assets during the year, ought to haveconsidered furnishing of 73% of the invoices.in relation to capital assets acquired duringtheyearaS|furnishingofsubstantia]evidence relating to capital assets andtherefore ought to have allowed depreciationunder section 32 of the Act, on all theassets, 1.e., 100% of the assets acquiredduring the year?” 2? For the reasons, assigned by us in thejudgment passed today in I.T.A.No.569/2017, the orderdated 27.05.2016 passed by the tribunal insofar as itpertains to Assessment Year 2007-08 is quashed insofar as it pertains to findings on substantial questions of law.Nos.2 and 3 and it is held that ATMs are held entitled.for deprecation at the rate of 60% as computers. In the result, appeal is disposed of. Sd/-—JUDGE. SS| Sd/-JUDGE.