Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multi function printer in Devinder Singh Walia, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 9 March, 2017Matching Fragments
3. The Ld.Sr.DR relied upon the impugned order.
I.T.A .No.-5836/Del/2015 Devinder Singh Walia vs ITO
4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the facts having held that the issue was debatable was required to hold that the AO erred in withdrawing the claim by an order u/s 154 on an issue which was debatable. Even otherwise on merits it is seen that before the CIT(A) vide Ground No.4 the assessee had faulted the AO in treating the computer based multi- functional photocopier as an ordinary photocopier. As far as the facts are concerned, there is no doubt that it has been the constant claim of the assessee that it was not a plain and simple photocopier but a multi-functional photocopier having the facility to functioning as a printer, scanner, fax and zerox machine. Accordingly, admittedly it was entitled to a higher depreciation. Thus, I find that the AO in the facts of the present case was incorrect in withdrawing the higher depreciation in the manner it has been done. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of ITO vs Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) fully supports the decision taken. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.