2013 (8) TMI 381 - HC - Income Tax

Tax appeal denied, depreciation disallowed on software, deductions under Income Tax Act upheld

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV. Versus SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD.

The High Court dismissed the tax appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities on both issues raised by the Revenue. The disallowance of ... Depreciation on intangible assets - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- CIT (A) on proper examination of evidences and material rightly came to the conclusion that software is intangible asset and was loaded in the system of machine. The learned CIT (A) also rightly held that installation of software could be checked by the technical person whether it was loaded in the system or not. Therefore, the finding in the survey cannot be relied upon. Even the AO has accepted the fact that some of the software were developed locally and installed in the system. The finding of fact recorded by learned CIT (A) find support from the valuation report of assets prepared by Dalai Mott Macdonald which was found in survey which indicated that software developed and installed by the assessee in the system. The assessee produced all the vouchers and receipt for the same which was also examined by learned CIT(A) - Unless perversity is pointed out, no question of law arises for this Court to interfere as both have dealt with the issues elaborately giving sound and cogent reasons - Decided against Revenue. Deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80IA - CIT allowed deduction - Held that:- Such deduction would be available only there was positive income. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment, made certain additions and thereby converted the return of the assessee of one of loss into the assessment order computing positive income. Only at that stage, the question of the assessee pressing for the deductions under Sections 80HHC or 80-IA of the Act arose. This would be known and available to the assessee only once the Assessing Officer passes his order. Under the circumstances, the assessee in the appeal before the Commissioner in addition to questioning the validity of the additions themselves, also raised an alternative legal contention of deductions under the said provisions - Commissioner committed no error He only entertained such an contention but remanded ,the proceedings for verification of facts to the Assessing Officer - occasion to press for deduction under the said provision arose only when once the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Disallowance of claim of depreciation on intangible assets (software).2. Examination of claim under Section 80HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.Issue 1 - Disallowance of claim of depreciation on intangible assets (software):The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets, specifically software. The Tribunal had previously upheld a similar decision for the assessee in a previous assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee by confirming the CIT(Appeals) order, stating that unless perversity is pointed out, there is no justification for interference. Both CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for their decisions, concluding that the issue did not merit further consideration. The High Court, therefore, held that question no.1 did not require consideration based on the previous orders and the detailed analysis provided by the lower authorities.Issue 2 - Examination of claim under Section 80HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act:The assessee filed a return of income for a particular assessment year showing a loss. However, after certain additions by the Assessing Officer, the income assessed turned positive. The assessee then claimed deductions under Section 80HHC and 80-IA of the Act. The Commissioner agreed with the assessee in principle but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A) order, stating that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for the deductions under the provisions. The High Court noted that the claim for deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IA arose only after the Assessing Officer converted the loss into a positive income through additions. The Commissioner did not err in entertaining the contention and remanding the proceedings for verification of facts. As the claim for deductions was made after the income turned positive, the High Court held that no question of law arose, and thus dismissed the tax appeal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities on both issues raised by the Revenue.