2016 (1) TMI 452 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of software expenses - revenue v/s capital expenditure - AO treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation to the income of the assessee whereas CIT(A) treated as revenue expenditure - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G.E. Capital Services Ltd. 2007 (7) TMI 185 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that expenditure incurred by the company on computer software, which was not customized software and said software required frequent up-gradation and hence, it was held as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also noted that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. 2006 (10) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that up-gradation of computers by changing certain parts thereby enhancing the configuration of the computers for improving their efficiency without making any structural alternations is not change of an enduring nature. He also observed that in assessee s own case, in assessment year 2007-08 has held that if the expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for up-gradation of the software, the expenditure has to be allowed as a revenue expenditure and if the expenditure has been incurred for the first time for acquiring this software, the expenditure is to be treated as capital expenditure, therefore, he deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against revenue Addition on excess interest - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - No material was brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that no non-business utilization of the loan fund or diversion was proved by the Assessing Officer and disallowance of interest made was without any basis. In absence of any material being brought on record, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is after considering the entire facts of the case of the assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of software expenses as revenue expenditure
2. Addition of excess interest claimed by the assessee

Issue 1: Disallowance of software expenses as revenue expenditure

The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 10,11,000 made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing software expenses as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer treated the software expenses as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation to the income of the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which held that expenses on software, especially for up-gradation without structural alterations, could be considered revenue expenditure. The Commissioner also noted a previous ruling by the Tribunal in the assessee's case, stating that if expenditure was for software up-gradation, it should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Authorized Representative of the assessee highlighted that similar appeals in previous years were dismissed by the High Court, indicating identical facts. The Departmental Representative agreed with the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's order, aligning with the High Court's decision, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of excess interest claimed by the assessee

The second ground of appeal concerned the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of the excess interest amount of Rs. 46,12,758 added by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer contended that the interest paid by the assessee was higher than the interest charged on deposits/advances, indicating non-business diversion of funds. On appeal, the Commissioner noted that the assessee had availed loans for business purposes, including for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and computer purchases, with government guarantees. The Commissioner found that the funds were utilized as per the loan agreements and for business-related activities, including interest payments to banks, financial institutions, and bond holders. The Commissioner concluded that there was no non-business utilization or diversion of funds, contrary to the Assessing Officer's claim. Both representatives presented their arguments, with the Departmental Representative supporting the Assessing Officer's order and the Authorized Representative backing the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Assessing Officer's allegations of non-business fund utilization. As no material was presented to challenge the Commissioner's findings, the Tribunal affirmed the decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal in its entirety.