2016 (10) TMI 548 - HC - Income Tax

Allowability of professional fees paid expenses - whether the Tribunal was right in treating the professional fees paid to its collaborator KSB AG of Germany for implementing the SAP programme as an allowable expenditure when the use of this software enhances the efficiency of the organization which is enduring in nature and as good as the acquisition of an asset? - Held that - Taking note of rapid technological development, purchase of technology may not lead to any enduring benefit as the same may have to be upgraded very soon. In any case, the finding of fact in this case is that there is no purchase of technology by the respondent assessee. In the above view, the impugned order essentially renders a finding of fact that question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of professional fees paid for implementing SAP program as revenue or capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals challenging a common order dated 8th August, 2013, relating to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The main issue revolved around the treatment of professional fees paid to a collaborator for implementing the SAP program. The question raised was whether such fees should be considered as allowable revenue expenditure, given that the use of the software enhances organizational efficiency and is enduring in nature, akin to acquiring an asset.

The respondent, an assessee, had entered into an agreement with KSB AG Germany to implement the SAP program to synchronize and integrate business functions. The respondent paid professional fees to KSB Germany for services related to data migration, consultation, and system adaptation. However, the Assessing Officer contended that the respondent was the deemed owner of the SAP program, making the expenditure capital in nature due to enduring benefits and application of the functional test.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the respondent did not purchase the SAP program and that the payments to KSB Germany were for professional services, not acquisition of the software. The CIT(A) held the fees to be revenue expenditure, allowing the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, which concurred that the expenditure facilitated operational efficiency without creating a profit-making apparatus, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue argued that depreciation should be applicable to software acquisitions under Income Tax Rules, making the fees capital expenditure. However, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no acquisition of the SAP program by the respondent, precluding the application of depreciation rules. The professional charges were deemed to enhance operational efficiency without creating enduring benefits or profit-making apparatus.

Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted the rapid technological advancements and the necessity for upgrades due to obsolescence, indicating that technology expenses could be revenue in nature. Since there was no purchase of technology in this case, the Court concluded that the question did not raise a substantial legal issue, leading to the dismissal of both appeals without costs.