Tribunal dismisses additional disallowance, allows depreciation on sheds, software, and fees

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to additional disallowance under Section 14A and depreciation on electrical fittings. It allowed the grounds related to depreciation on temporary sheds, software licenses, and non-compete fees, partly allowing the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Additional disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Depreciation on temporary shed.
3. Depreciation on electrical fittings.
4. Depreciation on software licenses.
5. Disallowance of payment of non-compete fees.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Additional disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The assessee claimed exempt income and made suo-motu disallowances under Section 14A for the respective assessment years. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the basis of these disallowances and applied Rule 8D, resulting in further disallowances. The assessee argued that investments in mutual funds and subsidiaries, which did not yield exempt income, should be excluded. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that the dominant purpose of investment is irrelevant, and the principle of apportionment applies. The Tribunal upheld the AO’s disallowance, stating the assessee did not maintain separate accounts for investment-related expenses and did not provide a basis for suo-motu disallowances. Thus, the ground was dismissed.

2. Depreciation on temporary shed:
The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on temporary sheds made of steel pipes and iron meshes, which the AO restricted to 10%, viewing them as permanent structures. The Tribunal found that such structures, especially in a seaside area like Chennai, are susceptible to fast corrosion and do not have an enduring nature. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

3. Depreciation on electrical fittings:
The assessee claimed 15% depreciation on electrical fittings, arguing they should be classified under plant and machinery. The AO and CIT(A) classified them under the block of Furniture and fittings, allowing only 10% depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this classification, as the assessee did not provide evidence showing the fittings were part of plant and machinery. Thus, the ground was dismissed.

4. Depreciation on software licenses:
The AO restricted depreciation on software licenses to 25%, treating them as intangible assets, while the assessee claimed 60% depreciation, treating them as computer software. The Tribunal found that the items in question were software or software applications, which fall under the definition of computer software as per New Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed 60% depreciation, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

5. Disallowance of payment of non-compete fees:
The assessee paid non-compete fees to restrict a competitor for eighteen months and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The AO and CIT(A) treated it as capital expenditure, providing an enduring benefit. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court judgment in Asianet Communications Ltd vs. CIT, which held that non-compete fees do not create a new business or profit-making apparatus and should be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the non-compete fees as revenue expenditure, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to additional disallowance under Section 14A and depreciation on electrical fittings. It allowed the grounds related to depreciation on temporary sheds, software licenses, and non-compete fees, thereby partly allowing the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years.

---