9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Revenue has raised sole substantive ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing depreciation for software license at the rate of 60% instead of 25% allowable as per Income Tax Rules and further erred on relying on the judicial decisions which are not relevant to the assessee's case. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of data processing, prepress services and export of software and filed return of income electronically on 27.09.2012 with total income of Rs. 16,27,41,050/- and was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the grounds, arguments, facts of the case, findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, and written submissions with the judicial decisions of Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT 111 ITR 112 and Navneet Publications India Ltd in ITA No. 1137/Mum/2010, and found that similar issue in assessee case was decided favorably and observed at para 7.2.1 of the order:- ''7.2.1. Further, the appellant's Authorised Representative submitted that the same issue was decided in favor of the appellant by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the earlier A.Y. 2010-2011 vide order in IAT No. 1889/2013-14 dated 31.12.2014. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the above order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is reproduced h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... character of tangible asset were as software license is a intangible asset and depreciation is allowable @25% as per part B of Appendix 1 of depreciation table and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing depreciation @60% relying on the judicial decisions not relevant to the facts of the assessee and prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Contra, the ld. Authorised Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-2011 allowed in favour of the assessee on similar issue and submitted judicial decisions and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying on the decision in the case of Amway India Enterprises Vs. DCIT held that the assessee would be entitled for depreciation @ 60% since "computer software" falls in the category of "plant". On perusing the facts of the case, we find the decision of learned CIT(A) to be justified because the Special Bench of the Tribunal (supra) has categorically held that with effect from 01.04.2003 "computer software" has to be classified as "tangible asset" under the heading 'plant' as mentioned in Appendix I to Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue''. We, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision, dismiss the ground of the Revenue. 8. In the result, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
