2010 (5) TMI 622 - AT - Income Tax

Technical advisory services and assistance for the designing and development of the software product- Annual Contract and lump-sum consideration - Capital or Revenue Expense? - Held That - The assessee-company is throughout the year engaged in the business of rendering software services to its clients. Since no capital asset was acquired nor any benefit of enduring nature so as to treat the expenditure as of capital in nature has been acquired by the assessee, and since the assessee has availed of the services of M/s. Derpol Investment Ltd. in the course of carrying on its business of software development and deployment we are of the considered view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is to be allowed as revenue expenditure irrespective of the fact whether any revenue has been generated from those services or not.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the payment made to a company constitutes capital or revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
The only issue in this appeal pertained to the treatment of a payment made by the assessee-company to another company, termed as Derpol, as either capital or revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed a deduction of Rs. 10,30,500, considering the payment to Derpol as capital expenditure due to the nature of the services provided. The agreement between the companies outlined technical advisory services for software development. The Assessing Officer argued that the expenses led to an enduring benefit, thus classifying them as capital expenditure.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) analyzed the nature of the services provided by Derpol. The Commissioner noted that the payment was for technical testing and software amendments required by the client, Spice Communication P. Ltd. The agreement with Derpol was initiated only after successful testing and amendments were made. The Commissioner concluded that the expenses were revenue in nature, as they were for advisory services to meet client requirements and did not result in the creation of any enduring asset. Therefore, the Commissioner directed the allowance of the claimed expenses.

The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the case, emphasized that the services provided by Derpol were utilized by the assessee in its regular business operations of software development and deployment. The Tribunal found no evidence that the expenses incurred resulted in the acquisition of a capital asset or an enduring benefit. As the payment to Derpol was directly related to the services rendered during the period in question and was essential for the business operations, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision to treat the expenses as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.