9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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. - Income Tax Appeal No. 728, 777 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. R. Murlidhar a/w Mr. Balasaheb Yewale i/b Rajesh Shah Co. for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. The Income Tax Appeal No.777 of 2014 is not on board. Mentioned. Upon mentioning taken up for consideration along with Income Tax Appeal No.728 of 2014, which is on board. 2. Both these appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee during the subject assessment years paid consideration for the professional services received from it, claiming the same to be revenue expenditure. 6. However, during the assessment proceedings for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing Officer did not accept the respondent assessee's claim that amounts paid as professional services is revenue in nature. This on the ground that the respondent is deemed owner of the SAP Programme. This ownership it holds would lead to a benefit of enduring nature. Moreover, on application of functional test, this expenditure would be capital in nature. 7. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to M/s. KSB Germany had facilitated the conduct of the respondent assessee's operations in a more efficient manner. This acquisition was not in a nature of a profit making apparatus. Therefore, not in the capital field. Thus, the Revenue's appeal from the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2007-08 and the assessee's appeal from the final order of Assessment of the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2006-07 were allowed by the impugned order. 9. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the acquisition of computer software programme such as SAP in terms of Income Tax Rules, is entitled for depreciation. In that view, it is submitted that fees paid to M/s. KSB Germany cannot be considered to be a revenue expenditure. 10. We find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
