IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3333/MUM/2023 (निर्धरा ण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Financial of Income Tax, Circle - Shared Services Limited, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5^th One World Center, Tower 1, 18^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, Road, Mumbai – 400 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, 020, Maharashtra Elphinstone Road, Mumbai –

400 013, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAHCA1581A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No. 20/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3333/MUM/2023)

Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Aditya Birla Financial Vs. Assistant Commissioner Shared Services Limited, of Income Tax, Circle - One World Center, Tower 1, 18^th 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai – 400 020, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – Maharashtra

400 013, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAHCA1581A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar,AR रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr.DR)

सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee emanate from the order dated 21.07.2023 M/s Aditya Birla Financial Shared Services Limited.

of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], passed w.r.t. assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. Since the issues are common and interlinked, and also the fact that the appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.3333/MUM/2023 first as below:

2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:-

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing AO to delete the addition made by the AO on account of depreciation claimed by the assessee company of Rs. 2,75,24,307/- on lease-hold asset treating the same as asset owned by the assessee company, when the facts are that owner of the lease-hold asset i.e M/s. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (1) Pvt. (HPFS) has also claimed such depreciation, which was allowed to it by the department in its case in ITA No. 2845/Mum/2013 dated 23/03/2016.

3. Facts of the case are that subsequent to the order u/s 143(3) of the Act passed on 04.03.2014, information was received by the ld.AO from the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(2), Mumbai that during the course of the assessment proceedings, in the case of Hewlett Packard Financial Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred as HPFS), a lease arrangement existed between HPFS and the assessee. Further, it was found that both the companies were claiming depreciation on the leased assets which led to double claim of deduction on account of depreciation. On perusal of the records, it was noted by him that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,75,24,307/- on the fixed assets. Further, the assessee had got assets on lease from HPFS and had claimed depreciation on these assets. Further, there was no bifurcation of lease assets and owned assets on the record. According to the AO, the assets which had M/s Aditya Birla Financial Shared Services Limited.

been leased to the assessee were not eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act,. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The AO opined that depreciation could be claimed only on the asset owned by an entity, and thus, if HPFS was claiming to be the owner of the asset and was claiming depreciation, then on the same assets depreciation was not allowable to the assessee. The AO