IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.4460/Del/2025 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S CNB FINWIZ PRIVATE LIMITED, बनाम ADDITIONAL/JOINT

302-303, EMCA House 23/23B, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. TAX (APPEAL)-1/ PAN No.AABCB2613A ACIT, Circle 6(1), Delhi.

अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Gaurav Gupta, CA and Shri Mohan Chaudhary, Advocate Revenue by Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 16.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 16.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. This appeal arises from order dated 13.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Chandigarh. In this case, the main ground of appeal pertains to a claim of depreciation @60% on software obtained by the assessee. This claim was restricted to 25% by the Ld. AO and this action was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis a finding that the software in question was developed in-house and was developed to suit the peculiar requirements of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that such a software was covered under the definition of “intangible assets” and would be subjected to a depreciation of 25% only.

1.1 Aggrieved with this action the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds, four of which challenge the assumption of jurisdiction. However, the Ld. AR mentioned at the Bar that he would not be pressing ground nos. 1,2,3 & 4. It was mentioned by the Ld. AR that he would be pressing only the grounds on merit which challenged the action of the authorities below in allowing only 25% depreciation instead of 60% claimed.

2. Before us the Ld. AR placed a detailed paper book and written submissions. It was stated that the assessee is a trading member of the National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange. The assessee is involved in high frequency trading and for that activity specialized software is required. It was the submission that such software is integral to the business of the assessee and would be eligible for 60% depreciation rather than merely being an intangible asset. The Ld. AR pointed out several case laws and drew our attention specifically to the case of Indian Mortgage Guarantee Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.5263/Del/2018 order dated 09.11.2021]. The other cases relied upon pertained to the Hon’ble Madras High Court, and several other orders of ITAT, Delhi and Mumbai.

2.1 Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the authorities below had correctly calculated the depreciation @25%

since that is what was provided in the Act and the Schedules thereon.

3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also perused the many orders relied on by the Ld. AR. We find that this issue would be squarely covered by the case of Indian Mortgage Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

(supra), where the following has been recorded: -

“7. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the issue is no more res-integra. The issue has already been decided in catena of judgements in favour of the assessee by allowing the depreciation @ 60%. He submitted that under the identical facts, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Computer Age Management Services (P.) Ltd.[2019] 109 taxmann.com 134 (Madras) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by allowing depreciation @ 60%.

8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A has decided the issue by observing as under:-

6. “Ground no. 2 & its sub grounds: In this case the addition has been ma