Software depreciation allowed at 60% rate when embedded with hardware under Rule 8D disallowance principles

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee company on multiple issues. For disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance. The tribunal allowed depreciation on software at 60% rate, treating software embedded with hardware as integral part of computer equipment. Interest on late deposit of FBT, penalty on service tax, and interest on late deposit of service tax were held allowable as compensatory rather than penal, following SC precedent in Lachmandas Mathura case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s 14A
2. Claim of Depreciation
3. Interest on Late Deposit

Disallowance u/s 14A:
The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 14,98,610 under Section 14A, arguing that the disallowed amount exceeded the actual dividend income earned. The appellant also highlighted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not adequately justify the disallowance, especially considering the appellant's submission regarding related expenses. The appellant emphasized that the investments were not solely for earning dividends, and the entire investment portfolio was not appropriately considered for disallowance. The ITAT directed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A.

Claim of Depreciation:
Regarding the claim of depreciation, the appellant challenged the AO's decision to allow depreciation at 25% instead of the claimed 60% on software assets, arguing that the software was integral to the business application. The ITAT referred to a previous case where the depreciation claim was upheld at 60% due to the software's essential nature in content production. The ITAT affirmed the decision of the CIT(A) based on the consistency of earlier tribunal orders and declined to interfere with the depreciation claim at 25%.

Interest on Late Deposit:
The appellant disputed the disallowance of Rs. 1,53,048 towards interest on late deposits, arguing that such expenses were compensatory and not penal in nature. The CIT(A) relied on a Madras High Court judgment from 1998, which the appellant contested by citing a Karnataka High Court judgment from 2008. The ITAT referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the compensatory nature of interest on late deposits and allowed the interest on late deposit of FBT, penalty on service tax, and interest on late deposit of service tax. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowances made under Section 14A, depreciation claim, and interest on late deposits. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering investments yielding exempt income for disallowance, recognizing the integral nature of software assets for business operations, and acknowledging the compensatory nature of interest on late deposits.

---