Software expenses allowed as revenue expenditure, inventory valuation deletion confirmed, Section 14A disallowance restricted under Rule 8D(2)

ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s decision allowing software expenses as revenue expenditure, following precedent from A.Y. 2007-08 that attained finality. The tribunal confirmed deletion of inventory valuation addition, accepting assessee's LIFO method based on Bombay HC decision and consistent application since A.Y. 1982-83. For Section 14A disallowance, ITAT partially allowed appeal, directing AO to restrict disallowance under Rule 8D(2) to investments yielding exempt income during the relevant year and consider suo moto disallowance made by assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 14A and Rule 8D for disallowance of expenditure related to tax-free income.
2. Classification of software expenses as revenue or capital expenditure.
3. Valuation of inventory using FIFO method.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14A and Rule 8D:

The primary issue was whether the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D, was justified. The assessee argued that there was no direct and proximate nexus between the expenditure incurred and the tax-free income earned, hence Section 14A should not apply. The assessee also contended that it had sufficient own funds, and no borrowings were used for investments, thus no interest should be disallowed under Section 14A. The assessee had made a suo moto disallowance, which the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation. The Tribunal held that the AO must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to record such dissatisfaction and directed that the disallowance be computed only on investments yielding exempt income, following the decisions in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Ltd. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

2. Classification of Software Expenses:

The revenue challenged the deletion of the addition related to software expenses treated as capital expenditure by the AO. The Tribunal noted that this issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee by the coordinate bench and the Bombay High Court, which held that the software expenses related to website/portal were of revenue nature. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity, and dismissed the revenue's ground.

3. Valuation of Inventory Using FIFO Method:

The revenue also contested the deletion of the addition on valuation of inventory using the FIFO method. The Tribunal observed that the LIFO method had been consistently accepted by the authorities in the assessee's case since Assessment Year 1982-83. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the consistent view taken by the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, which upheld the LIFO method as a valid accounting practice. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's ground.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee regarding software expenses and inventory valuation. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning disallowance under Section 14A, directing a restricted computation based on investments yielding exempt income. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---