2018 (4) TMI 29 - AT - Income Tax

Applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) to the purchase of capital assets - Held that - This issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd.(2013 (1) TMI 448 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) wherein held that in absence of any requirements in law for making deduction of tax at source on expenditure incurred on technical know-how which was capitalized, disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made. Assessing Officer was not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged failure to deduct tax at source on purchase of software capitalized in books of account. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11.
- Disallowance of depreciation on purchase of software under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
- Applicability of section 40(a)(ia) to purchase of capital assets.
- Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the subsequent confirmation and enhancement by the CIT(A). The appellant contended that the impugned orders were erroneous and should be quashed.

2. The primary issue in this case was the disallowance of depreciation claimed on the purchase of software under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on the grounds that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source on the purchase of software, which was capitalized in the books of account. The CIT(A) upheld this action based on a decision of the jurisdictional High Court.

3. The crux of the matter revolved around the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) to the purchase of capital assets, specifically software in this case. The appellant argued that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) did not apply to capital assets based on various decisions cited. The Assessing Officer's position was challenged, emphasizing that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified for expenses incurred on capitalized items.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the legal position and relevant case laws, notably citing the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd. The High Court's ruling clarified that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for expenses capitalized without any legal requirement for tax deduction at source. The Tribunal concurred with this interpretation and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the Assessing Officer's disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted for the purchase of software capitalized as a capital asset. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal provisions and precedents, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal.

Judgment:
- The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance of depreciation on the purchase of software under section 40(a)(ia) was deemed unjustified for capitalized assets.
- The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and supported by the ruling of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case, emphasizing the inapplicability of section 40(a)(ia) to capitalized expenses without tax deduction requirements.