ACIT-Circle-2(1), Chandigarh v. M/s Fastway Transmissions PVt.Ltd.,, Chandigarh

ITA 316/CHANDI/2020 | 2017-2018
Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 31621514 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN AABCF1854B
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 316/CHANDI/2020
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ACIT-Circle-2(1), Chandigarh
Respondent M/s Fastway Transmissions PVt.Ltd.,, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 22-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 22-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 08-02-2021
First Hearing Date 08-02-2021
Assessment Year 2017-2018
Appeal Filed On 31-08-2020
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.L NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 315 & 316/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2016-17 & 2017-18 THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) CHANDIGARH M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.17 INDUSTRIAL AREA-1 CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: AABCF1854B / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT C.O. NOS 1 & 2/CHD/2021 ./ ITA NOS. 315 & 316/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.17 INDUSTRIAL AREA-1 CHANDIGARH THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: AABCF1854B / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / REVENUE BY : SMT. C.CHANDRAKANTA CIT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR CA & SHRI BHAVESH JINDAL CA /DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.03.2021 / ORDER PER R.L. NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THE CAPTION ED APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22. 6.2020 PASSED BY 2 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 CHANDIG ARH [(FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 16-17 & 2017-18 VIDE WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE AP PEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT'). SINCE THESE AP PEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR TWO ASS ESSMENT YEARS AND THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN BOTH THE AP PEALS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN BOTH THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS THESE WERE CLUBBED HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 315/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE PERTAINING TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS AS MULTI SYSTEM OPERATORS AND DIGITAL CABLE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 60 79 98 8000/- THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.133 03 80 120/- INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 90 91 34 741/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENTAL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SET TOP BOXES TAKEN ON LEASE ADDITION OF RS. (-) 5 52 39 403/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CALCULATED ON EQUIPMENTS PR OCURED FROM 3 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH CISCO ON LEASE HOLD BASIS ADDITION OF RS. 9 89 077 /-ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO WORK IN PR OGRESS AND ADDITION OF RS. 1 83 17 325/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE P ARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. (-) 5 52 39 403/-MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CALCULATED ON EQUIPMENTS PR OCURED FROM CISCO ON LEASE HOLD BASIS ADDITION OF RS. 9 89 077 /-ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO WORK IN PR OGRESS AND ADDITION OF RS. 1 83 17 325/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 91 34 741/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENTAL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SET TOP BOXES TAKEN ON LEASE. THE REVENUE IS IN APP EAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER B Y RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONA L GROUND OF APPEAL W.R.T. ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @60% ON STBS AS LEGAL QUESTION AND THUS ADMITTED IT FOR ADJUDICATION WHEN ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS REGARDING CLAIM OF @60% DEPRECIATION FOR AY 2012-13 TO AY 2015-16 WERE NEVER EXAMINED BY ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY BEF ORE? 4 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH 2. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO ADJUDGE THAT STB S FULFILL CONDITIONS LAID IN CASE LAW DCIT VS DATA CRAFT INDI A PVT. LTD (SUPRA) AND HENCE STBS ARE COMPUTERS? 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO NOT EXAMINE HOW STBS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE 'PLANT & MACHINERY' BLOC K OF ASSETS ? 4. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO NOT EXAMINE THE FACTS THAT ALL OTHER MSO S(MULTI SYSTEM OPERATORS) ARE TR EATING STBS AS 'PLANT AND MACHINERY ' AND CLAIMING DEPRECI ATION @ OF 15% ONLY. 5. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO PUT ITS FOCUS EN TIRELY ON ONE RELATIVE ARGUMENT OF REVENUE IN ITS ASSESSMENT ORDER I.E. ECONOMIC LIFE OF STBS AS PER TRAI GUIDELINES I S 3 YEARS W.E.F. DATE OF INSTALLATION OF STBS IN CUSTOM ER'S PREMISES TO DETERMINE APPLICABLE RATE OF DEPRECIATI ON ALLOWED ON STBS WHILE NOT EXAMINING WHETHER STBS FA LL UNDER PLANT AND MACHINERY CATEGORY OF BLOCK OF ASSE TS? 6. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO OVERLOOK THE CUR RENT UTILIZATION OF VARIOUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSE E AS ON 31.03.2016 WHILE DELETING ADDITION U/S 36(L)(III) F OR SOFTWARE CWIP FOR THE AY 2016-17. 7. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO DELETE U/S 14A O F IT ACT MADE IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCULAR 05/2014 DATED 11.02.2 014 IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME FOR THE AY 2016-17. 5. VIDE GROUND NO 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON STBS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGAR H BENCH OF THE ITAT RENDERED IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASES FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16. 5 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH 6. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 AND 2015- 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2020 PASSED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN ASSESSEE S APPEALS FOR TH E AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE (DR) FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL HA S DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESS EES CASES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF TH E AO. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCL UDING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN ASSESS EES CASES REFERRED ABOVE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.547/CHD/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 ITA NO.139/C HD/2019 FOR AY 2012-13 ITA NO. 842/CHD/2018 FOR AY 2014-15 AND ITA NO.140/CHD/2019 FOR AY 2015-16. THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH 43. EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS THE OWN CASE OF THE DEPA RTMENT THAT THE STBS HAS A SHORT LIFE OF THREE YEARS. REFERRIN G TO THE CLAUSES OF THE MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CISCO A S DISCUSSED ABOVE IT HAS BEEN VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED B Y THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE LEASE DEED WAS SO DEVISED THAT THE TERM OF LEASE ENDS WITH THE LIFE OF THE EQUIPMENT; THAT AFTER THE PAYMENT OF THE LAST INSTALLMENT THE EQUIPMENT IS RENDERED VALUELESS; THAT THE AVERAGE LIFE OF THE STBS IS THREE YEARS ON LY AND THAT IS WHY THE LEASE DEED ALSO ENDS AT THREE YEARS. IN TH IS RESPECT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 13.12.2017 BY THE DEPARTMENT STRONG RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS R ESPECT WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE ECONOMIC LIFE SPAN OF ASSET NAMELY SET TOP BOX (STB) IS 3 TO 4 YEARS. THIS FACT IS ASCERTAINED AS PER THE TRAI GUIDELINE (PAGE 232 PARA 19 & 21 OF DPB-II) A ND THE SWORN STATEMENT RECODED U/S 131 ON 20.2.2014 OF SH SUSHIL THAKUR S/O SH. KARAM SINGH THAKUR WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) IN THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y SINCE 2008 (PAGE 143 OF DPB-III) WHEREIN HE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THAT USAGE LIFE OF STB I S APPROX. 3-4 YEARS ONLY AND LEASE TENURE IS ALSO 3-4 YEARS. THE TENURE AS PER LEASE SCHEDULE IS NEARLY THE SAME AS ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE EQUIPMENT. THUS LEASE PERIOD IS SETTLED IN SUCH A WAY SO THAT THE CISCO F ULLY RECOVERS THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSET TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON WITHIN THE LIFE SPAN OF THE ASSET. FURTHER IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 26.2.2018 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE PHYSICAL LIFE OF THE ASSETS IS NOT RELEVANT HE RE. IT IS THE ECONOMIC LIFE SPAN OF STB WHICH IS RELEVANT AS PER ITAT SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN INDUS IND BANK AND ACCOUNTING STANDARD. AS PER TRAI GUIDELINE AND SWOR N STATEMENT U/S 131 OF SHRI SUSHIL THAKUR THE ECONOMI C LIFE SPAN IS 3 TO 4 YEARS. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE H AS CHARGED DEPRECIATION OF THESE ASSETS @ 27.82% (PAGE 176 7 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH OF DPB 1 ON STB / HEADENDS) IN ITS BOOKS VIZ-A-VIZ CHARGING OF DEPRECIATION ON OTHER ASSETS @ 14%. THU S MAJOR PART OF THE LIFE OF STB IS COVERED IN 3 TO 4 YEARS. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PLACED RELI ANCE ON TRAI NOTIFICATION NO. 1-19/2012-B&CS DATED 27.3.2013 AS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER: SL. PARTICULARS TARIFF 1. RENT PER MONTH PER SET TOP BOX FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS RS.32.93 (EXCLUSIVE OF TAXES) 2. AFTER THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION NO RENT. THE SET TOP BOX SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE SUBSCRIBER EXCEPT SMART CARD/VIEWING 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT (ADJUSTABLE) RS. 800/ - 4. AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUNDED ON RETURN OF THE SET TOP BOX AS PER ATTACHED TABLE - B 5. INSTALLATION CHARGES NIL 6. ACTIVATION CHARGES NIL 7. SMART CARD/VIEWING CARD CHARGES NIL 8. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION NIL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE ABOVE TARIFF PLAN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONSUM ERS AT THE END OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION OF THE STB IN CONSUMERS PREMISES THE CONSUMER BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS RESPECT HA S OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE EQUIP MENT HOW CAN IT PASS ON THE OWNERSHIP TO THE CONSUMER AFTER 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION. WE HAVE ALREADY AGRE ED IN THIS RESPECT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER AS PER THE TRAI NOTIFICATION ALSO THE LIF E OF THE STBS HAS BEEN TAKEN AT 3 YEARS. AS PER THE SAID NOT IFICATION OF THE TRAI AFTER 3 YEARS THE CONSUMER BECOMES THE O WNER OF 8 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH THE EQUIPMENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE SERVICE PRO VIDER (ASSESSEE HEREIN) IS ALSO ABSOLVED OF THE LIABILITY OF ANY WARRANTY / GUARANTEE OR MAINTENANCE OF THE EQUIPMEN T MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE RECOVERS THE RENT FOR 3 YEARS FROM THE CONSUMER AND FURTHER THE SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM THE CONSUMER IS FORFEITED/APPROPRIATED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF 3 YEARS AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE CONSUM ER BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE EQUIPMENT. AS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT THE END OF THE 3 YEARS THE SE CURITY DEPOSIT SO FORFEITED OR APPROPRIATED TO IT IS OFFER ED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EQUIPMENT THUS IS DEEMED TO BE SOLD TO THE CONSUMER. THUS THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE W ITH CONSUMERS IN SUBSTANCE IS A HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS. THE EQUIPMENT REMAINS ON HIRE FOR 3 YEARS WITH THE CONSUMER BUT IS DEEMED TO BE SOLD AT THE E ND OF 3 YEARS. HERE THE INTERESTING POINT IS THAT WHEN AT THE END OF 3 YEARS THE EQUIPMENT IS SOLD AND THE RECEIPT / SALE PRICE ALONG WITH THE HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM THE CONSUMER DU RING THE PERIOD ALREADY OFFERED TO THE INCOME TAX HOW CAN T HE DEDUCTION OF CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT / EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT CAN BE POSTPONED BEYOND SUCH DATE OF SALE OF EQUIPMENT? THE INCOME UNDER TH E INCOME TAX ACT IS THE RESULTANT PROFIT AFTER DEDUCTION OF THE INVESTMENT / EXPENDITURE INCURRED FROM THE TOTAL SA LE PRICE RECEIVED / RECEIVABLE. THEREFORE WHEN THE TOTAL RE CEIPT RELATING TO THE EQUIPMENT EITHER IN THE SHAPE OF HI RE CHARGES OR SALE PRICE IN THE SHAPE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT APPR OPRIATED AT THE END OF 3 YEARS IS ACCOUNTED FOR AS RECEIPT/INC OME THEN THE DEDUCTION OF THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE EITH ER IN THE SHAPE OF DEPRECIATION OR IN THE SHAPE OF REVENUE EX PENDITURE UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE DELAYED OR POSTPONED BEYOND THE DATE OF SALE OF EQUIPMENT. THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE SE T OFF FROM THE FINAL RECEIPT / SALE PRICE BY WHATEVER MANNER E ITHER AS A DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OR AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE NO MORE REMAINS THE OWNER OF THE EQUIPMENT HOW CAN IT CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME 9 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH WHICH IS SINE QUA NON FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. T HE ENTIRE COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE EQUIPMENT IS R EQUIRED TO BE SQUARED OFF AT THE TIME OF SALE OF EQUIPMENT. HE NCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED EI THER TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT EITHER AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE AND IF THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS CAP ITAL ASSET THEN DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE POSTPONED BEYOND THE AC TUAL LIFE / OWNERSHIP OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE E QUIPMENT AT THE END OF 3 YEARS FROM THE SALE PRICE RECEIVED. HO WEVER THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE TH AT IT IS THE OWN CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE LIFE OF THE EQU IPMENT IS 3 YEARS AND THAT THE ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE IS A CAPITAL ASSET THEN WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW CAN T HE DEPARTMENT PRESS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE GRANT OF DEPRE CIATION AT A LOWER RATE WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE LIFE OF THE ASSET. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO THE ASSESSE E IN OUR VIEW IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATIO N WHICH IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE LIFE OF THE ASSET. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE IT IS HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECATION @ 60% AS APPLIC ABLE TO THE COMPUTERS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS GR OUND IS ACCORDINGLY STANDS ALLOWED. 9. WE NOTICE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER: WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON SET OF BOXES AT 15% WHEREAS RIGHTLY ALLOWABLE AT 80% 10. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ADDITION GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION HOLDING THAT NEITHER ANY NEW FACT NOR ANY NEW EVIDENCE IS R EQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED FOR 10 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH ADJUDICATING THE SAID GROUND. SO THE LD. CIT(A) A FTER HEARING ASSESSEE DECIDED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 TO 2015-16. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW SINC E THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISS UE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2013 TO 2015-16 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DE CISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). W E ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 11. VIDE GROUND NO. 6 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED T HE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 89 077/- O UT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16 REFERRED ABOVE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE 11 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH FINDINGS OF THE AO. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL. WE NOTICE THAT THIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16 AND THE COORDINATE BENCH DECIDED THE SAM E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: 54. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND M ERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FO RM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES TO THE TUNE OF RS.105 CR ORES AND RS.107 CRORES RESPECTIVELY TO MEET THE ADVANCE GIVEN OF RS.3.20 CRORES. THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERE D BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS OF THE APEX COURT OF THE COUNTRY INCLUDING THAT OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD VS. CIT JALANDHAR (SUPRA) CIT VS. KAPSONS ASSOCIATES (2016) 381 ITR 204 (P&H) AN D THE LATEST DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JANAK GLOBAL RESO URCES PVT LTD ITA NO. 470/CHD/2018 ORDER DATED 16.10.201 8 HOLDING THAT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS POSSESSED OF SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS / I NTEREST FREE ADVANCES THEN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESUMPTION WILL BE THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES / INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF O WN FUNDS / INTEREST FREE FUNDS. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPE CT CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (P) LTD VS. CIT 379 ITR 347 (SC) AND ALSO ON THE LATEST DECISION OF TH E 12 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (LTU) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). THUS AS PER THE SETTLED LAW NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 36 (1)(III) OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 2 32 75 003 BUT HAD NOT CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST ON THE SAME FOR TH E REASON THAT THE APPELLANT HAD HUGE INTEREST FREE RESERVES AND OWN FUNDS. AS P OINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) LD. AR DEMONSTRATED DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 145.34 CRORE AND RS. 63.52 CRORE RESPECTIVELY TO MEET THE CAPITAL WORK I N PROGRESS. SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENC H RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 2-13 TO 2015-16 DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMIS S THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 15. VIDE GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE HA S CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A. THE LD. 13 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSU E IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR ADMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES APPEALS. HOWEVER THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 17. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEAL REFERRED ABOVE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD NO E XEMPT INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR HOWEVER THE AO COMPUTED THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 1 83 17 325/- U/S 14 A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INC OME TAX RULES. THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEALS REFERRED ABOVE DELETED THE ADDITION. WE NOTICE THA T THIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSEE S APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16 AND THE BENCH DELETED THE ADDITION MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT HOLDING AS UNDER: 76. GROUND NO.11: VIDE GROUND NO.11 THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE AO U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED FOR EARNING OF TAX-EXEMPT INCOME. 14 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY TAX EXEMPT INCOME DUR ING THE YEAR. HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS WARRANTED . 1. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE VIZ.CIT FARIDABAD VS. LAKHANI MARKETING INC. 226 TAXMAN 45 (P&H ) CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILES (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H) CHEMINVEST LTD VS. ITO (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DELHI) CORRTECH ENERG Y P. LTD. (2014) 45 TAXMAN.COM 116 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) CIT VS. M/S SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD (2014) 2 72 CTR (ALL) 277. IN ALL THE ABOVE REFERRED TO CASE L AWS THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN UNANIMOUS TO HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS ATTRACTED U/S 14A OF THE AC T IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ABOVE ISSUE IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 18. WE NOTICE THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESS EES APPEALS REFERRED ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND 15 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 1/CHD/2021:- THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) BY FILING CROSS OBJECTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1 CHANDIGARH IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS SUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION O F THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING LEASE RENTAL ON SET TOP BOXES AMOUNTING TO RS 9 91 34 741/- (A.Y. 2 016- 17) AND RS. 50 23 75 476/- (A.Y. 2017-18) TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE APPELLATE COMPANY FROM M./S CISCO SYST EMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT. LTD. 2. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERE D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16. THE LD. COUNSE L FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCL UDING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIA TION ON THE CUSTOM DUTY COMPONENT AND ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS FOR ACQUIRING AS SETS FROM CISCO. THE AO OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRE CIATION IT CANNOT CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT FOR THE AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT PAID TO CISCO. THE 16 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16. THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER:- 27. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF THE LEASE DEE D IN QUESTION AND IN THE LIGHT OF PROPOSITION SETTLED TH ROUGH VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER COURTS AND HIGHEST COURT OF THE COUNTRY THAT WHEN THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT LOO KED INTO WITH THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE DETERMINAT IVE OF THE NATURE OF THE SUCH CONTRACTS WE HAVE NO HESITA TION TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TH AT OF A LOAN/FINANCE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS TERMS OF THE DEED WE FIND THAT THE ONLY ROLE OF THE LESSOR IN T HE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT IS TO FINANCE THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SE OF EQUIPMENT WITH THE LESSEE SELECTING THE EQUIPMENT TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE DEALER USING IT FOR ITS EXPECTED E CONOMIC LIFE PAYING BACK THE ENTIRE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT OVER THE LEASE TENURE AND EXERCISING ALL RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE ASSET AND ALSO BEARING THE RISKS OF LOSSES DAM AGES ETC. ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET AND NO OPTION TO THE LESSEE TO TERMINATE THE LEASE AND RET URN THE ASSET BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE TERM. THUS IT I S NEITHER A LEASE NOR A HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BUT A LOAN/ FINANCE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TITLE OF THE ASSET REMAINS WITH T HE LESSOR IS CONCERNED WE FIND FROM THE CLAUSES OF THE AGREE MENT THAT THE SAID TITLE IS RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURITY FOR RECOVERY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMPANIES ACT AS PER COMPANIES ACT TO FOLLOW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-19 THE LEASE TRANSACTION WI TH CISCO WAS BOOKED AS FINANCE LEASE IS CONCERNED THO UGH 17 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION HOWEVER WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONT ENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS MANDATORILY REQU IRED TO TREAT THE LEASE AS FINANCE LEASE IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT AS- 19 ONLY DEFINES THE NATURE OF THE LEASE TRANSACTION; H OWEVER IT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT EVERY LEASE TRANSACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS FINANCE LEASE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE FULLY KNOWING THE FACTS AND AS PER THE ACTUAL INTENTIONAL BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION OUT OF ITS OWN WILL HAS TREATED THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION AS FINANCE LEASE. HOWEV ER WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT SAID TREATMENT BY THE ASSESS EE OF THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION AS PER AS-19 HAS NO REL EVANCE SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS UNDER INCOME TAX ACT IS CONCERNED. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LESSOR CISCO HAD BEEN ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS BY THE ITAT FROM A.Y 2008-09 TO 2010-11 THU S PROVING THAT ITS OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS STOOD ACCE PTED BY THE REVENUE IN OUR VIEW IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE SINC E THE PRESENT LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 07-12-2 011 RELATING TO A.Y. 2012-13 WHICH IS A SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR. EVEN OTHERWISE ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CISCO IT IS REVEALED THAT THE I SSUE BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT RELATED ON LY TO THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE ON THE LEASED ASSETS AND THE QUESTION REGARDING ENTITLEMENT OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS NEVER BEFO RE IT. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ITAT HAD DECI DED THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF CISCO OF BEING OWNER OF TH E ASSET. EVEN OTHERWISE IF THE CISCO HAS RETAINED SOME OWNE RSHIP RIGHTS OVER THE ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURITY OF THE LOAN AMOUNT AND THEREFORE ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE O F 18 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH ARGUMENTS THAT THE ASSETS ARE NOT FULLY OWNED BY TH E ASSESSEE EVEN THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 WI LL BE ATTRACTED AS IT PROVIDES FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS OWNED FULLY OR PARTLY BY AN ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THERE IS NO DOUBT AB OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT IN OUR VIE W IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS TO B E READ AS A WHOLE AND A SINGLE LINE OR WORD CANNOT BE CHO SEN TO INTERPRET A DIFFERENT MEANING. WHAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONVEYED IS THAT THOUGH THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE DEED IS NOT DOUBTED BUT THE REAL INTENTION BEHIND THE DEED IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE DEED AND F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT IN THE P RESENT CASE WAS A LOAN / FINANCE ARRANGEMENT IN THE GUISE OF A LEASE AGREEMENT. 28. HOWEVER THE CONTROVERSY DOES NOT END HERE. TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE THE OWNER OF THE ASSET HOWEVER THE NEXT QUESTION THAT ARISE IS WHETHER THE ASSET I S HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS/TRADING ASSET OR AS A CAPI TAL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FURTHER GIVES ON H IRE THE STBS TO VARIOUS CONSUMERS AND INSTALLS THOSE IN THE IR PREMISES. THE CONSUMERS DEPOSIT REFUNDABLE SECURITY AMOUNT ALMOST EQUAL TO THE COST OF THE STBS TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE CHARGES MONTHLY RENT FROM THE CONSUMERS FOR THREE YEARS. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THRE E YEARS THE STBS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSUMERS AND A T THE SAME TIME THE SECURITY DEPOSIT GETS FORFEITED AND APPROPRIATED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH I S ALSO OFFERED/SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX. THE TRANSACTION WI TH CONSUMERS THUS APPARENTLY APPEARS TO BE OF A HIR E- PURCHASE THE ASSESSEE BEING THE LESSER CUM SELLER THE DETAIL OF THE TRANSACTION WE WILL DISCUSS IN THE LA TER PART OF THE ORDER. HOWEVER THE QUESTION THAT WILL ARISE AT THIS STAGE AS TO AN ASSET HELD OR FURTHER GIVEN ON HIRE - 19 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH PURCHASE BY AN ASSESSEE WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LETTING & SELLING A PARTICULAR TYPE OF GOOD (STBS) ON HIRE- PURCHASE BASIS WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO AND INTEGRAL P ART OF MAIN BUSINESS OF BROADCASTING OF CHANNELS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS/TRADING ASS ET OF THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENDI TURE U/37 OF THE ACT OR AS A CAPITAL ASSET OF THE ASSESS EE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION UND ER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. SINCE NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEE N ADVANCED ON THIS ISSUE BY ANY OF THE PARTIES HENCE IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN EARLIER PARAS OF THI S ORDER WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE NEXT CONTROVERSY TREATING THE ASSET AS A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO CLAIM INTEREST PAID AS PART OF THE SAID LEASE RENTALS AS EXPENDITURE U/S 36 (1) (III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENT OF ALLEGE D LEASE RENT PAID AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSETS PURCHASED FROM BORR OWED CAPITAL. 4. SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN ASSESSEES APPE ALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16 WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. ITA NO.316/CHD/2020 FOR A.Y. 2017-18 GROUND NO 1 TO 4 OF THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO G ROUND NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE 20 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AF ORESAID. WE HAVE DISMISSED THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIA L CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE EXCEPT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. HENCE CONSISTENT WITH OUR F INDINGS IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE AY 2016-17 WE DISMISS GROUND NO 1 TO 4 OF T HE PRESENT APPEAL FOR THE SAME REASONS. 2. SIMILARLY GROUND NO 5 THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 6 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AF ORESAID. WE HAVE DISMISSED THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE EXCEPT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WE DISMISS GROUND NO 5 OF THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR THE SAME REASONS. 3. FURTHER GROUND NO 6 OF THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 7 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AF ORESAID. WE HAVE DISMISSED THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE EXCEPT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WE DISMISS GROUND NO 6 OF THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE SAME REASONS. CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 2/CHD/2021:- 21 ITA NO. 315 & 316-C-2020 FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. NOS 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016- 17 & 2017-18 M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT. L TD CHANDIGARH GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTION IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS O BJECTION RAISED IN ITS CO NO 1/CHD/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. WE HAVE DISMISSED THE CROSS OBJECTION NO 1/CHD/2021 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINC E THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. HENCE CONSISTENT WITH OUR FINDINGS IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR AY 2016-17 WE DISMISS THE PRESENT CROSS FOR THE SA ME REASONS. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CR OSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24.03.2021. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (R.L.NEGI) / VICE PRESIDENT / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24.03.2021 . . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. / DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR