2020 (4) TMI 518 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of computer software expenses - AO disallowed depreciation claim u/s 40(a)(ia) since the assessee had not deducted tax at source from the payments made for purchase of software - HELD THAT - Since the assessee has itself disallowed the entire purchase cost of softwares, then making addition of ₹ 6.24 lakhs (which is included in the amount already disallowed by the assessee) again to the total income would amount to double disallowance which is not permitted under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we find merit in the submissions of learned Authorised Representative. As relying on case SMS DEMAG PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT 2010 (1) TMI 624 - ITAT, DELHI , SKOL BREWERIES LTD. 2013 (1) TMI 623 - ITAT MUMBAI and M/S MARK AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. 2013 (1) TMI 448 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT depreciation is not subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of computer software expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of software purchases as revenue expenditure for book purposes but capital expenditure for income tax purposes.
3. Discrepancy in deduction of tax at source on software purchases.
4. Double disallowance concern due to disallowance by the assessee and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
5. Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on depreciation.
6. Judicial precedents supporting the non-applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on depreciation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were against the Assessment Order for the Asst. Year 2011-12 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel directed the Assessing Officer to make certain disallowances.
2. The assessee treated software purchases as capital expenditure for income tax purposes but revenue expenditure for book purposes, resulting in a discrepancy in treatment.
3. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee did not deduct tax at source on software purchases, leading to a tax liability.
4. The assessee had already disallowed the entire purchase cost of software, including the amount not subject to tax deduction. The DRP's additional disallowance would result in double disallowance, which is impermissible.
5. The issue of invoking Section 40(a)(ia) on depreciation was raised, citing judicial precedents like Kawasaki Micro Electronics Inc. and others, which held that depreciation is not subject to disallowance under this section.
6. Based on precedents and the assessee's actions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of the amount not subject to tax deduction. Consequently, Ground No.5 of the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue did not require further adjudication.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistent treatment of expenses, the application of tax deduction rules, and the relevance of judicial precedents in determining tax liabilities and disallowances under the Income Tax Act.