2016 (10) TMI 992 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal decision: Repair expenses as revenue, software deductions allowed.

The DCIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. and Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. Versus Asst. CIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

The DCIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. and Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. Versus Asst. CIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of capital expenses versus revenue expenses.2. Deduction of software expenses as revenue expenditure.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Classification of Capital Expenses vs. Revenue Expenses:The Revenue raised two interconnected grounds regarding the classification of expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined that the expenses incurred by the Assessee for repairs and maintenance of buildings and other repairs were capital in nature, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 2,27,84,281/-. The AO allowed depreciation at 10%, resulting in a net addition of Rs. 2,05,05,853/-. The Assessee argued that these expenses were for regular repairs and maintenance due to wear and tear, and no new asset was created. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] agreed with the Assessee, noting that the expenses were recurring and necessary for maintaining the existing assets, thus classifying them as revenue expenses. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the expenditure claimed towards building and other repairs and withdraw the depreciation allowed in the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not provide any material evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.2. Deduction of Software Expenses as Revenue Expenditure:The Assessee incurred software expenses of Rs. 45,60,530/- and claimed them as revenue expenditure. The AO treated these expenses as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation and making a net addition of Rs. 18,24,172/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the previous year's order where similar expenses were capitalized. However, the Assessee argued that the software expenses were for application software and upgrades necessary for the business, which should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee, citing the decision in the Assessee's own case for the previous assessment year (2007-08), where the software expenses were treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were for upgrading existing software and not for acquiring new software, thus allowing the Assessee's claim for revenue expenditure.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of expenses as capital in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat them as revenue expenses. In the Assessee's appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of software expenses as revenue expenditure, following the precedent set in the previous assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of these expenses for the Assessee's business operations and the lack of evidence from the Revenue to prove otherwise.