Court allows 60% software depreciation & non-compete fee as revenue expenditure

The Court upheld the assessee's entitlement to claim 60% depreciation for software licenses under Entry 5 of Part A of New Appendix I, emphasizing specific entries over general ones. Additionally, the non-compete fee was treated as a revenue expenditure due to the lack of enduring benefits for the assessee, supported by a detailed analysis of the agreement terms. The Court dismissed the tax case appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues, based on the Tribunal's correct interpretation of provisions and factual assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim depreciation at 60% for software licenses.
2. Treatment of non-compete fee as revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the eligibility of the assessee to claim depreciation at 60% for software or software applications. The Revenue contended that the acquired licenses were intangible assets falling under Part B of New Appendix I, allowing only 25% depreciation. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the software licenses qualified for 60% depreciation under Entry 5 of Part A of New Appendix I, supported by Note 7 defining 'computer software.' The Tribunal highlighted that the specific entry prevailed over the general entry in Part B, emphasizing the nature of the acquired software and the relevant provisions.

2. The second issue pertains to the treatment of the non-compete fee paid by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement clause and duration, concluding that the fee did not result in enduring benefits for the assessee. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal deemed the non-compete fee as a revenue expenditure, emphasizing the factual evaluation and the absence of long-term advantages for the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed interpretation of the agreement and relevant legal precedents.

3. The judgment referenced a previous decision involving a similar issue regarding the interpretation of entries in a taxing statute, emphasizing the importance of giving full effect to the words used in the statute. By applying established rules of interpretation, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the depreciation issue, reinforcing the significance of specific entries over general ones. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the legal interpretation and application of relevant provisions in the context of the case.

4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the tax case appeals, ruling against the Revenue on both substantial questions of law. The decision was based on the Tribunal's correct interpretation of the provisions and factual assessment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's arguments. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeals and connected CMPs, highlighting the resolution of the issues in favor of the assessee based on the legal and factual analysis presented during the proceedings.

---