Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: empanelment :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Assistant CIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi Vs. Snap-on Business Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd., . 11th Floor, DLF Tower-A, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi.
May, 01st 2015
         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               (DELHI BENCH "G" NEW DELHI)
     BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

                         ITA No. 3294 /Del/2012
                        Assessment Year: 2007-08

Assistant CIT,                 vs.         Snap-on Business Solution
Circle-7(1),                               (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.                                 11th Floor, DLF Tower-A,
                                           Jasola District Centre,
                                           New Delhi.
                                            (PAN: AAACN0780H)
      (Appellant)                             (Respondent)


                         Cross Obj. No. 311 /Del/2012
                          Assessment Year: 2007-08

Snap-on Business Solution                  Assistant CIT,
(India) Pvt. Ltd.,                         Circle 7(1),
11th Floor, DLF Tower-A,                   New Delhi.
Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi.
 (PAN: AAACN0780H)
     (Appellant)                             (Respondent)

                     Appellant by: Shri BRR Kumar, Sr. DR
                    Respondent by: Shri Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CA

                    Date of hearing : 30.04.2015
             Date of pronouncement: 30:04.2015

                                 ORDER

PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
      The Revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following

grounds:
                                                                               2


      1. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in
         giving a relief of Rs.1,08,492 on account of addition made by the
         Assessing Officer under the head software expenses to the tune of
         Rs.4,79,072 treating the same as capital expenses.
      2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in
         deleting the addition of Rs.32,99,211 made by the Assessing
         Officer on account of capitalization of various expenses claimed in
         profit and loss account.


2.    The assessee on the other hand has objected the First Appellate Order

in its cross objection that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining

disallowance of Rs.83,200 by holding that the payment of Rs.2,08,000 was

capital in nature instead of Revenue expenses as claimed by the assessee.



3.     We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties

in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record.



4.    Ground No.1 (Revenue) & Objection in C.O. (Assessee):In support

of the grounds, the Learned DR tried to justify the assessment order on the

issue. He submitted that the assessee had purchased five licenses from

M.S.S. Global/I.T. Retail Ink. The total payment was made at Rs.7,80,717

and out of the above Rs.2,71,072 pertained to this year only, which was

booked to software expenses during the year. The balance Rs.5,09,645 was
                                                                           3


booked in earlier years. The assessee had also purchased data base

controlling software from F-I InfoTech for Rs.2,08,000. The assessee had

claimed Rs.4,79,072 as software expenses in the profit and loss account.

Since the amount spent on software is eligible for depreciation under sec. 32

of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the amount and

allowed depreciation @ 60% i.e. Rs.2,87,443 under the head `software'. The

balance amount of Rs.1,91,629 was added to the income of the assessee. The

Learned CIT(Appeals) was thus not justified in granting the relief to the

extent of Rs.1,08,429 (40% of Rs.2,71,072) and restricting the addition to

the extent of Rs.83,200 (Rs.1,91,629 ­ Rs.1,08,429).





5.    The Learned AR on the other hand submitted that the Learned

CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.83,200

instead of deleting the full disallowance of Rs.1,99,629 made by the

Assessing Officer. He also tried to justify the relief given by the Learned

CIT(Appeals) with this submissions that supply of software worth

Rs.4,79,072 purchased from two parties was in order to be further supplied

to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. with whom a contract for supply of

150 numbers of retail software to be used in their `in and out stores' had

been entered into. The products were shipped directly to BPCL, Mumbai

although the relevant invoice has been billed to the assessee company. Copy
                                                                           4


of the terms and conditions for implementation of the retail stores

management system entered into by the assessee with BPCL was filed. "in

and out stored" are retail outlets for household provisions located in select

BPCL Petrol Pumps for which a customized software was to be supplied by

the assessee, which in turn has been acquired from M/s. I.T. Retail Inks.

Therefore, so far as acquisition of 50 numbers of customized software from

I.T. Retails Ink is concerned, the same having been further sold away as per

the contract with BPCL, constitutes part of the trading/contract cost of the

assessee company, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly held that the

expenditure would qualify as "revenue expenditure", even though it relates

to acquisition of software.



6.    Regarding the balance Rs.2,08,000 towards purchase of software from

F.I. Info Tech is concerned, the Learned AR submitted that the item in

question was a `data modeling software-erwin is a tool provided by C.A.

Erwin which is used to design the database model, it does not matter with

data base you are using'. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the action of

the Assessing Officer in treating the software as capital assets on the basis

that the item was purchased with two years maintenance facility and it has

been used by the assessee company for its own purpose and not for the
                                                                            5


purpose of the sales to BPCL. The Learned CIT(Appeals) was thus not

justified in treating the same as capital assets and sustaining 40%

disallowance thereof after affording allowability of depreciation @ 60%

thereupon.

7.    Considering the above submission, we find that the Learned

CIT(Appeals) was justified in accepting the expenses of Rs.2,71,072

incurred by the assessee for the acquisition of 50 numbers of customized

software from I.T. Retail Ink as the same was further sold away as per the

contract with BPCL, hence, it constituted part of the trading/contract cost of

the assessee company. Thus, there was no any reason to doubt the finding of

the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the expenditure would qualify as Revenue

expenditure even though it relates to acquisition of software. This action of

the Learned CIT(Appeals) is upheld. So far as expenditure of Rs.2,08,000

incurred towards purchase of software from F.I. Info Tech is concerned, we

find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has observed that the software was used

as tool for designing of the data base model of the assessee company and the

same was not sold out to BPCL as claimed by the assessee. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) noted further that as per the description of the invoice, the

item in question was purchased with two years maintenance facility, thus, it

was used by the assessee company for its own purpose and not for the
                                                                                6


purpose of sale of the BPCL. He held further that the data model acquired by

the assessee falls into the description of the computer software as per Rule 5

Appendix-I Part III (5). In absence of rebuttal of these factual findings of the

Learned CIT(Appeals) by the assessee, we do not find reason to interfere

with the decision of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the data model acquired

by the assessee was capital assets and the assessee was eligible for

depreciation @60%. Under these facts, we do not find reason to interfere

with the sustenance of disallowance of Rs.83,200 by the Learned

CIT(Appeals) (40% of Rs.2,08,000). The ground No.1 of the appeal

preferred by the Revenue is thus rejected and objection raised by the

assessee in its cross-objection is also rejected.

8.    Ground No.2 (Revenue):           The Assessing Officer disallowed the

claimed Revenue expenditure incurred on account of recruitment expenses

(Rs.20,12,648),    training   expenses     (Rs.1,89,332),    H.R.    Consultancy

(Rs.5,32,010)     and   project   consultancy       (Rs.16,64,959)   totaling   to

Rs.43,98,949. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the claimed

expenditure led to the creation of assets which bring enduring benefit to the

assessee, hence, it is capital expenditure and allowed depreciation @ 25%

thereupon resulting into the addition of Rs.32,99,211. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) has, however, accepted the claimed expenditure as Revenue in
                                                                           7


nature. This action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) has been questioned by the

Revenue before the ITAT.

9.    In support of the ground, Learned DR has placed reliance on the

assessment order. He referred the contents of the related paragraphs of the

assessment order at page Nos. 5 to 7 of the assessment order. The Learned

AR on the other hand tried to justify the First Appellate Order on the issue.

He reiterated the submissions made in this regard before the authorities

below.

10.   After having gone the orders of the authorities below, we do not find

any infirmity in the First Appellate Order on the issue. We concur with the

finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the claimed expenditure was of

Revenue in nature as the expenditure incurred under the head "recruitment

expenses" were yearly subscriptions paid to staff hiring sites like Moon

Stor.com and Naukri.com (page Nos. 4 to 38 of the paper book), which are

annual charges and not of any enduring nature. The expense also includes

traveling expenses for interviews etc. The training expenses are payments to

outside consultants to update the knowledge scheme of the employees,

which is a periodical payment (page Nos. 39 to 49 of the paper book). So far

as HR Consultancy is concerned, the assessee does not have a HR Division.

They have hired the services of a consultant who visits the office
                                                                            8





periodically and carries on all HR works (page Nos.52 to 54 of the paper

book). Regarding the expenditure incurred on project consultancy (page

Nos. 55 to 85 of the paper book), the submission of the assessee and finding

of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the assessee is a 100% EOU supplying

customize business application software and for independent testing of the

software before export to customers, the expenditure was incurred has not

been rebutted. The contention of the assessee in this regard remained that all

software prepared by the assessee are required to be tested and certified by

an independent agency before the same is accepted as final. The copy of

bills produce supports the above submission of the assessee that the

expenditure was incurred for testing of software and thus we are of the view

that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly accepted it as Revenue in nature.

The First Appellate Order in this regard is thus upheld. The ground No. 2 is

accordingly rejected.

11.   In result, both the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed.

      Decision pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2015


                  Sd/-                                     Sd/-
             ( INTURI RAMA RAO )                        ( I.C. SUDHIR )
            ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 30 /04/2015
Mohan Lal
                                                                      9



                          Copy forwarded to:

                          1)    Appellant

                          2)    Respondent

                          3)    CIT

                          4)    CIT(Appeals)

                          5)    DR:ITAT

                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR



                                                     Date
Draft dictated on computer                   30.04.2015
Draft placed before author                   30 .04.2015
Draft proposed & placed before the second    30.04.2015
member
Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS         30.04.2015
Kept for pronouncement on                    30.04.2015
File sent to the Bench Clerk                 30.04.2015
Date on which file goes to the AR
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions