[Opinion] Robot Gets Just 15% Depreciation!

  • Blog|News|Income Tax|
  • 4 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 21 April, 2023

Depreciation on Robots

Meenakshi Subramaniam – [2023] 149 taxmann.com 326 (Article)

New income tax officer:

“Depreciation means value starts vanishing. So, as you are asking for depreciation for robot, has the robot started vanishing? “



New Income Tax officer:

“Tell, me, how much of robot has disappeared ? When the robot vanishes completely, you will get full depreciation.”

It’s rather strange that robots get a raw deal, compared to computers, regarding depreciation. Recently, the Chennai Tribunal held that robot can get 15% depreciation, only and not 60% depreciation, available for computer. Of course, now the depreciation for computers too has come down. Till A Y 2017-18, computers got 60 per cent depreciation, while from 2018-19, its 40 per cent, but still the robot has to be satisfied with 15% depreciation.

[2023] 149 taxmann.com 137 (Chennai – Trib.) Robotix Learning Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer


The assessee claimed depreciation on Robotix kits @ 60%. The rate was reduced to 15% by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order citing the ITAT order dated 12.09.2018 in assessee’s own case. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT (Appeals), holding that the Commissioner had erred in sustaining the disallowance of presumed excess claim of depreciation on Robotix Kits without assigning proper reasons and justification and consequently erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,19,956/- in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the claim of depreciation at 60% was erroneously reduced to 15% and ought to have appreciated that the restriction of the depreciation based on wrong understanding of the facts and mechanical adoption of the findings in the earlier appellate orders was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law

The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law.

The assessee’s pleas was directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai dated 05.03.2020 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17.

On being aggrieved, the assessee appeared in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Chennai Tribunal heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and went through the orders of authorities.

The appeal raised grounds (No. 6 & 7) related to disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on Robotix Kits of 16,19,956/-.

Before Tribunal, the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that robotix kit is a part and parcel of the computer and therefore, the assessee is eligible for claiming 60% depreciation. Further by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [I.T. Appeal Nos. 2564 & 2566 (Chny) of 2018, dated 7-6-2019] wherein, the Tribunal has considered that the ATM machine is eligible for 60% depreciation for the reason that computer is attached to ATM and similarly, it was prayed for allowing 60% depreciation.

On other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15 in ITA No. 2669/Chny/2017 dated 12.09.2018 and supported the orders of authorities below.

The Tribunal said it had heard the rival contentions. During the assessment year 2014-15 similar issue on an identical fact was subject matter in appeal and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has observed as under:

“4. We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also.
Admittedly, the assessee purchased robotix kits for the purpose of its business. Since computers are operating the robotix kits, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 60% which is eligible for computers. The question arises for consideration is whether robotix kits can be considered as computer merely because the same are operated through computer? It is common knowledge that nowadays the entire industry is automated and machineries are operated through computer. It does not mean that the entire industrial undertaking was a computer. The computer or software installed therein may be used for operating industrial machineries. In this case also, the computer or software attached is used for operation of robotix kits. Therefore, it cannot be construed as if the robotix kits itself is a computer. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the computer is totally different which comprises processing data and not the machinery which undertakes works as per the instruction given through the computer. Therefore, computer is a different one and robotix kits are entirely different machineries. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation @ 60% as claimed. Accordingly, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.”

By following the above decision of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer reduced the claim of depreciation on Robotix kits @ 15%, which was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The Chennai Tribunal held:

“We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.”

The case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case for the reason that the computer or software attached is used for operation of robotix kits and therefore, it cannot be construed as if the robotix kits itself is a computer. Thus, the Chennai Tribunal held:

“The ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.”

Click Here To Read The Full Article

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied