9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing engineer and has acquired the software for his use. The letter written by the supplier that the payment was withheld for not updating the software, in our view is not sufficient cause to disallow the depreciation because an engineer who purchases a software can continue to use the existing version till its updation. Sri Dilip is right in his submission that since the period of use is less than 180 days, the assessee shall be entitled for only 30% depreciation. This position of fact and law is not disputed by Sri Annamalai. So far as the expenditure is concerned, AO has rejected the same by merely recording that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the business expediency. It is trite that the AO cannot sit in the arm c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he field of Civil Engineering. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed depreciation on software and expenditure towards business development. These two findings have been confirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT. Hence, this appeal. 4. Sri Annamalai for the assessee submitted that the AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the supplier of software namely, M/s Infinitii - i.t. vide its letter dated March 10, 2015, had informed that the balance payment of Rs.4.70 lakhs was not received by them for the reason of non replacement of software version with the latest version. He submitted that this reason is unsustainable because assessee was using the old version of the soft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of expenditure is not explained. Therefore, AO has rightly rejected the expenditure. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. The first contention is with regard to allowing depreciation on software. It is not in dispute that the software was acquired on 23.3.2012 and the period before the expiry of the financial year namely, 31.3.2012 was less than 180 days. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a consulting engineer and has acquired the software for his use. The letter written by the supplier that the payment was withheld for not updating the software, in our view is not sufficient cause to disallow the depreciation because an engineer who purchases a software can continue to use t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
