9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtise in technology to increase the revenue. By incurring such expenditure, the assessee may get enduring benefit in future, nevertheless, the same would not result into creation of any new capital asset. Therefore, such expenditure, in our considered opinion, would be fully allowable being revenue in nature as held by Pune Tribunal in Opus Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd [ 2012 (11) TMI 619 - ITAT PUNE] on similar factual matrix. We order so. The deprecation granted by Ld. AO would stand reversed - Decided in favour of assessee. Remuneration to Directors - the only reason to make impugned addition is the opinion of Ld. AO that reimbursements should have been included in salary component in Form No. 16 - HELD THAT:- Theses reimbursemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd services. It debited R D expenditure of ₹ 81.99 Lacs. However, Ld. AO opined that the same would be capital expenditure in the nature of intangible assets which would be eligible for depreciation. The assessee submitted that the expenditure was not in connection with development of end-products but to improve the services in the area of testing, short-cuts in coding etc. The expenditure was incurred for improving expertise in technology and the purpose was to increase the revenue. However, the same could not convince Ld. AO who treated the expenditure to be capital in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the stand of Ld. AO, inter-alia, by observing that the expenditure would bring enduring benefit to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding medial allowance, however, Ld. added the amount of travel/expenditure reimbursement to the income of the assessee on the ground that such component should have been included in the salary. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us. 3.2. Upon due consideration of material facts, we find that the only reason to make impugned addition is the opinion of Ld. AO that reimbursements should have been included in salary component in Form No. 16. However, there are no findings that the expenditure was not genuine. Theses reimbursements are part of offer letters issued by the assessee to respective directors (page nos. 100 to 107 of paper-book). Upon perusal of the same, we find that the dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
