Computer software depreciation and section 14A limits: Tribunal applies software rate, restricts disallowance, and deletes MAT addition.

Computer software acquired by an assessee was held to fall within the specific depreciation entry for computer software, so depreciation at 60% applied rather than treatment as an intangible asset at 25%. The section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance was restricted to the assessee's suo motu disallowance because no dividend income was earned and the exempt income was limited; the higher computation was not sustained. A disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was also held not to automatically increase book profit under section 115JB, so the MAT adjustment was deleted. Interest was left to be recalculated consequentially.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether computer software acquired by the assessee was eligible for depreciation at 60% as computer software rather than at 25% as an intangible asset. (ii) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was to be restricted to the assessee's suo motu disallowance. (iii) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be added to book profit under section 115JB.

Issue (i): Whether computer software acquired by the assessee was eligible for depreciation at 60% as computer software rather than at 25% as an intangible asset.

Analysis: The software purchased during the year was treated by the revenue authorities as an intangible asset, but the assessee relied on the depreciation schedule for computer including computer software. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the software purchases was not in dispute and that the nature of the asset fell within the computer software entry in the depreciation schedule. The characterisation adopted by the revenue authorities as a business or commercial right was held to be incorrect.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to computer software, and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was to be restricted to the assessee's suo motu disallowance.

Analysis: The assessee had not earned dividend income and had earned only a small exempt share of profit from one LLP. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's working that distinguished investments yielding exempt income from those generating taxable income and held that the disallowance should not exceed the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee on its own computation.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A was restricted to the assessee's suo motu disallowance, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be added to book profit under section 115JB.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the settled position that a disallowance computed under section 14A read with Rule 8D does not automatically form part of book profit for MAT purposes.

Conclusion: The addition to book profit under section 115JB was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive grounds, with relief granted on depreciation, section 14A disallowance, and MAT adjustment, while the levy of interest was left to be recalculated consequentially.

Ratio Decidendi: Software that falls within the specific depreciation entry for computer software is to be depreciated under that entry, and a section 14A disallowance computed under Rule 8D does not ipso facto enlarge book profit under section 115JB.

---