Software license fees ruled revenue expenditure, Section 14A disallowance partially deleted, transfer pricing adjustments made

ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple tax issues. Software license fees were held to be revenue expenditure due to periodic nature, not creating enduring benefits. Section 14A disallowance under rule 8D was partially deleted where own funds exceeded exempt investments. Transfer pricing adjustments were made for counter guarantees to associated enterprises at 0.5% and delayed receivables at LIBOR+100 basis points after 60 days credit period. Warranty provisions were remanded for verification of actual expenditure. Amalgamation expenses under section 35DD must be claimed in 1/5th installments over 5 years. UPS depreciation was allowed at 60% as computer accessory. Various other issues were remanded for fresh consideration by assessing officer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Expenditure on software to be allowed as revenue expense.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
3. Addition on account of unutilized MODVAT credit.
4. Depreciation on UPS.
5. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: (a) Notional interest for counter guarantee given to associate concern, (b) Notional interest for delayed payment from AEs.
6. Disallowance of the provision for warranty.
7. Allowability of amalgamation expenses under Section 35DD.
8. Disallowance of commission payable to the Managing Director under Section 40(a)(ia).
9. Disallowance for delayed payment of ESIC under Section 36(1)(va).
10. Disallowance for excess depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation.
11. Treaty rate to be applied for dividend distributed instead of rate prescribed in Section 115-O.
12. TP Adjustment towards sale of goods to AE.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Expenditure on Software to be Allowed as Revenue Expense:
The assessee incurred software expenditure of Rs. 35,37,723/-. The AO treated it as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation of Rs. 17,11,188. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court's decisions in CIT v. Amway India Enterprises and CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., held that such software expenses are revenue in nature as they upgrade the system without creating a new asset. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance and allowed the expenditure as revenue in nature.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:
The assessee earned tax-free income and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 7,73,439/- under Section 14A. The AO recomputed the disallowance to Rs. 98,83,000/-. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments and thus, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments that earned tax-free income and excluding growth funds.

3. Addition on Account of Unutilized MODVAT Credit:
The AO added Rs. 3,28,76,516/- to the total income for non-inclusion of CENVAT credit in the closing stock. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to re-examine in light of the amended Section 145A and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Diamond Dye Chem Limited, which held that the tax impact is neutral under both inclusive and exclusive methods.

4. Depreciation on UPS:
The AO allowed depreciation on UPS at 15% instead of the claimed 60%. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. and PCIT v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd., allowed depreciation on UPS at 60%, treating it as part of the computer system.

5. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
(a) Notional Interest for Counter Guarantee Given to AE: The AO made a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,06,23,299/- for counter guarantee. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, held that the ALP for the counter guarantee should be 0.5% and directed the AO to recompute accordingly.
(b) Notional Interest for Delayed Payment from AEs: The AO made a TP adjustment of Rs. 11,95,587/- for delayed payments. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal directed the AO to charge interest at LIBOR + 100 basis points after considering a credit period of 60 days, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Tecnimont.

6. Disallowance of the Provision for Warranty:
The AO disallowed the provision of Rs. 25,00,000/- for warranty as a contingent liability. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the basis of the provision and actual expenditure incurred, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd.

7. Allowability of Amalgamation Expenses under Section 35DD:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,65,524/- of the claimed amalgamation expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal noted that Section 35DD allows only 1/5th of the expenses incurred in the year of amalgamation and subsequent four years, and rejected the assessee's claim for a different treatment.

8. Disallowance of Commission Payable to the Managing Director under Section 40(a)(ia):
The AO disallowed Rs. 75,00,000/- for commission payable to the MD for non-deduction of tax under Section 194H. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification, noting that the commission was part of salary and tax was deducted under Section 192 when paid.

9. Disallowance for Delayed Payment of ESIC under Section 36(1)(va):
The AO disallowed Rs. 30,715/- for delayed payment. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd vs CIT, dismissed the assessee's claim.

10. Disallowance for Excess Depreciation Claim on Assets Eligible for 100% Depreciation:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and was dismissed as not pressed.

11. Treaty Rate to be Applied for Dividend Distributed Instead of Rate Prescribed in Section 115-O:
The Tribunal dismissed this additional ground following the Special Bench decision in Total Oil (P) Ltd.

12. TP Adjustment towards Sale of Goods to AE:
The AO made a TP adjustment of Rs. 17,57,731/- using CUP method. The CIT(A) deleted this adjustment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that domestic sales cannot be directly compared with export sales due to different FAR, referencing the decision in Dow Chemicals International (P) Ltd. vs DCIT.

Conclusion:
The appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was partly allowed. The Tribunal provided detailed directions for each issue, ensuring compliance with relevant judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

---