Disallowance of intangible assets depreciation upheld, software expenses remitted for fresh verification

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets, ruling against the assessee, as the expenses were considered revenue in nature and did not result in acquiring commercial rights. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue of software expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, considering additional evidence provided by the assessee, following the High Court's decision that software expenses, even if providing enduring benefits, may not result in acquiring a capital asset.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets.
2. Disallowance of software expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Disallowance of Depreciation on Intangible Assets:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to INR 22,500,657. The assessee claimed depreciation on intangible assets at 25%, arguing that the costs incurred for obtaining various agreements (e.g., concession agreement, communication, navigation, and surveillance management agreement, State support agreement, and land lease agreement) qualify for capitalization as intangible assets under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that these agreements provided exclusive rights and commercial benefits essential for their business operations.

The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, stating that the expenses were primarily for legal, technical, and management fees, which do not qualify as acquiring business or commercial rights. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance, referencing a similar decision for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and material on record, noted that a coordinate Bench had previously upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2010-11, disallowing depreciation on intangible assets. The Tribunal reiterated that the expenditure was revenue in nature, incurred during the pre-operative period, and did not result in acquiring any commercial rights. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets, ruling against the assessee.

Disallowance of Software Expenses:
The second issue pertains to the disallowance of software expenses amounting to INR 4,591,040 (net of depreciation). The assessee argued that the software expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure, as the software had a short life span and did not yield enduring benefits. The AO, however, classified these expenses as capital in nature, providing enduring benefits and allowing depreciation at 60%.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing the lack of detailed break-up of the software expenses to determine whether they were for software licenses or annual updates.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted additional evidence, including a detailed break-up of software expenses, and argued that the software items had a short life span and required periodic renewal. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that it was crucial for determining whether the software expenses were revenue or capital in nature.

The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. IBM India Ltd., which held that software expenses, even if providing enduring benefits, do not result in acquiring a capital asset if they merely enhance productivity or efficiency. The Tribunal distinguished this from the decision in CIT v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd., which was based on specific facts concerning a particular software.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of the software expenses, considering the additional evidence and the High Court's ratio in IBM India Ltd. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets but remitted the issue of software expenses back to the AO for fresh consideration, based on the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

---