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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Federal Mogul Automotive Products India Pvt. Ltd., 7870-77, F-1, Roshnara Plaza Building,Roshnara Road,New Delhi. Vs. ITO,Ward 11 (2),New Delhi.
August, 28th 2012
                   DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI


                        ITA No.1728/Del/2012
                      Assessment Year : 2006-07

Federal Mogul Automotive           Vs.   ITO,
Products India Pvt. Ltd.,                Ward 11 (2),
7870-77, F-1, Roshnara Plaza             New Delhi.
Roshnara Road,
New Delhi.


    (Appellant)                             (Respondent)

            Assessee by        :    Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA
            Revenue by         :    Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi, Sr.DR



     This is an appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year
2006-07 against the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the CIT (A)-XIII,
New Delhi. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

     "1.    That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred
     in law on the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case in
     confirming the penalty of Rs.2,10,000/- under section 271 (1)(c)
     levied by the ld. A.O.

     2. That the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax
     (Appeals) is bad in law.

     3. That the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that assessee
     has furnished inaccurate particulars while claiming software
     expenses as revenue in nature.
                                     2                   ITA No.1728/Del/2012

      4. That the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the issue as to
      whether software expenses are revenue or of capital nature was
      highly debatable issue and penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) could not be
      levied on such debatable issue.

      5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts and in
      circumstances of the assessee's case in holding that the
      intention of the appellant was to defraud the interest of the

2.    The brief facts of the case are that vide assessment order dated
29.12.2009, passed u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, the income of the
assessee was assessed at nil after adjusting brought forward losses.
The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed Exact
Globe-2003 Software purchase expenses of ` 15,15,140/- as revenue
expenditure.    The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim
holding the expenses to be capital in nature.

3.    Against the aforesaid disallowance, no appeal was preferred by
the assessee.

4.    In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer observed that there
was express provisions of allowability of depreciation @ 60% on
software; that the assessee had made claim of such expenses in the
Profit & Loss Account, disregarding the said provisions of the Act,
thereby the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income
and had concealed a part of its income; and that also, the assessee
had not filed any appeal against the disallowance made in the

5.    By virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the
levy of penalty.

6.    Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal.
                                    3                 ITA No.1728/Del/2012

7.    Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the
assessee has contended that in the return of income filed, the
assessee had declared nil income after adjusting the brought forward
losses; that the Assessing Officer, in the assessment proceedings,
disallowed     the     assessee's       claim   of    expenditure        on
purchase/upgradation     of   computer     software   amounting     to    `
15,15,140/-, as capital expenditure; that the Assessing Officer,
however, allowed depreciation @ 60% being the rate applicable to
computer hardware, which resulted into a net addition of ` 6,06,056/-;
that in spite thereof, the taxable income was determined at nil and the
tax was held to be payable under the provisions of MAT, u/s 115JB of
the Act; that the amount involved being small and it representing a
shift in the timing of allowability of expenditure incurred by the
assessee, as it was to be allowed over a period of 3 to 4 years through
depreciation, instead of allowing the claim in the year under
consideration, and considering , besides the tax effect involved, the
high cost of litigation, it was decided not to file any appeal in the
quantum proceedings; that the assessee has paid the tax on book
profits u/s 115JB of the Act; that the disallowance of the software
expenses was under the normal provisions of the Act, having no effect
on the taxes paid by the assessee; that the assessee having so paid
the tax, there remains no tax `sought to be evaded' due to which the
provisions of Section 271 (1)(c) are not attracted; that undeniably, no
addition was made to the book profits of the assessee and therefore,
there is no difference between the returned book profits and the
assessed book profits; that this being so, the addition made by the
Assessing Officer does not give rise to any tax differential, clearly
indicating that there was no willful act or deliberateness on the part of
the assessee to evade payment of tax; that in this regard, reliance was
being placed on "CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.", 327 ITR 543
(Del), "CIT vs. Central Warehousing Corporation", 2012-TIOL-312-HC-
                                    4                 ITA No.1728/Del/2012

Del-IT (copy placed on record along with the synopsis filed) and "S.V.
Kalyanam", 327 ITR 477 (Mad); that the issue as to whether a
particular item of expenditure is capital expenditure or revenue
expenditure has always been a debatable one; that it was in "Amway
India Enterprises vs. DCIT", 114 TTJ 476 (Del) (SB) that various tests for
determining the nature of software expenses have been laid down,
holding that this issue should be decided from the practical and
businessmen point of view in accordance with the sound accountancy
principles keeping in consideration the tests of enduring benefit,
ownership and functionality test;       in "Amway India Enterprises"
(supra), it has been laid down that if the tests of enduring benefit are
satisfied, the question as to whether the expenditure on computer
software is capital or revenue has to be seen from the point of view of
its utility to a business man and as to how important an economic or
functional role it plays in the business and that in each case the
Assessing Officer will have to consider the nature of the software and
its functional use to the assessee and then decide whether the
expenditure is capital or revenue; that this very view has also been
taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of "CIT vs.
Krishna Maurti Ltd." 2011-TIOL-13-HC-DEL-IT; that it is on the basis of
functional aspect of the software involved, that the assessee treated
the software expenses as revenue in nature, in its books of account;
that this view find support from "CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.",
2011-TIOL-705-HC-IT and "CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd.", 2011 (7) TMI
953 (HC) rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court; and that the Ld.
CIT (A) has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has
wrongly upheld the levy of penalty.

8.    The ld. counsel of the assessee has further sought to place
reliance on:
                                         5                 ITA No.1728/Del/2012

     (i)         "CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.", 2010-TIOL-21-
                 SC; and
     (ii)        "CIT vs. Brahmaputra Consortium       Ltd.", 2011-TIOL-470-

9.          Then, for the proposition that concealment penalty cannot be
levied merely on the ground that the claim of the assessee has been
negated by the Assessing Officer, reliance has been placed on the
following case laws:-

     1.       "DCIT vs. Saraya Industry Ltd.", 101 TTJ 213 (Del);
     2.       "ITO vs. Kuldeep Sood Enterprises", 103 TTJ 573 (Ch.);
     3.       "CIT vs. Honeywell Dace India Ltd.", 292 ITR 169 (Del);
     4.       "CIT vs. International Audio Visual Co.", 288 ITR 570 (Del);
     5.       "CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd.",      288 ITR 670
     6.       "CIT vs. Eicon International Pvt. Ltd.", 166 ITR 12 (Del); and
     7.       "CIT vs. Videon", 301 ITR 260 (Del)

10.         The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the
impugned order, contending that the assessee had claimed an
expenditure which was not allowable as a revenue expenditure, since
the same was in the nature of capital expenditure; that the stand taken
by the assessee regarding non-filing of appeal in the quantum
proceedings has rightly been negated by the Ld. CIT (A), since
undeniably, there was no ground available to the assessee to file the
appeal, as the software expenses stand clearly defined as a capital
expenditure in the Act and depreciation thereon has been provided @
60% and the assessee did not even have any explanation to offer for
having claimed such expenses in the Profit & Loss Account and merely
maintaining that no penalty is called for on some additions; that the
                                    6                 ITA No.1728/Del/2012

Ld. CIT (A) has correctly held that since the assessee remains unable
to explain the reasons for making the wrong claim, the addition made
on the basis of such wrong claim definitely attracts penalty; that
"Reliance Petroproducts" (supra), as rightly noted by the Ld. CIT (A)
does not help the case of the assessee, its claim being ab initio wrong
and contrary to the provisions of law, about which, no two opinions
exist; that the expenditure claimed, i.e., software expenses is not a
routine disallowance and the assessee's claim that no penalty can be
levied for routine disallowances, has rightly been rejected; that in
"Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors", 306 ITR 277 (SC),
it has been held that the object behind the enactment of Section 271
(1) (c) of the Act read with its explanations, indicates that the said
section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue,
that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and that willful
concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability;
that in the present case, by wrongly claiming the software expenses as
revenue expenditure, the assessee caused loss to the revenue and so,
the concealment penalty was rightly levied and upheld; that in "CIT vs.
Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.", 191 Taxman 179 (Del), it has been
held that if the assessee made a claim not only incorrect in law, but
also without any basis and the explanation furnished by the assessee
was not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1)(c) of
the Act would come into play and the assessee would be liable for
penalty; that this decision is squarely applicable to the present case
and has rightly been applied by the Ld. CIT (A); that the explanation of
the assessee has rightly been held not to be a bona fide explanation
and it has rightly been held that the claim made by the assessee was
with the intention to defraud the interest of the revenue and had the
case of the assessee not been selected for scrutiny, the claim of the
assessee would have gone unnoticed and the assessee would have
succeeded in evading the tax; and that therefore, no fault whatsoever
                                    7                ITA No.1728/Del/2012

can be found with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), which be upheld
dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

11.   We have heard the parties and have perused the material on
record.   Firstly, it is seen that as rightly contended on behalf of the
assessee, there is no difference between the returned income and the
assessed income.     In "Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd." (supra), it has
been held that where the total income computed under the regular
provisions of the Act is less than the book profits, and the assessment
is made u/s 115JB of the Act, concealment penalty cannot be levied.

12.   Then, in "Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd." (supra), it has been held
by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that the expenditure incurred
on account of application software is a revenue expenditure, allowable
in the computation of income.

13.   Then, the claim of the assessee has not been shown to be a false
claim.    The view of the assessee is a plausible view, on which, two
opinions might be held.

14.   Further, in "Krishna Maurti Ltd" (supra), it was held that the
claim made by the assessee that expenses incurred were revenue in
nature, was debatable and therefore, it could not attract penalty.

15.   In view of the above, we do not find ourselves in agreement with
the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the same is hereby cancelled.
Accordingly, the penalty levied on the assessee is deleted.
                                    8                 ITA No.1728/Del/2012

16.   In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

      The order pronounced in the open court on 24.08.2012.

                   Sd/-                                Sd/-
         [T.S. KAPOOR]                           [A.D. JAIN]
      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated, 24.08.2012.


Copy forwarded to: -

1.    Appellant
2.    Respondent
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR, ITAT

                               TRUE COPY

                                                                By Order,

                                                       Deputy Registrar,
                                                     ITAT, Delhi Benches
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

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