https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121777 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, directing the AO to reassess certain issues. It determined most leasehold improvement expenses as revenue, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to VP-1 stock, and restored the examination of software expenses to the AO, referencing guidelines for distinguishing capital from revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also instructed the AO to reconsider depreciation on software if classified as capital expenditure, based on established principles recognizing software as a tangible asset eligible for depreciation. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2023 19:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121777 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, directing the AO to reassess certain issues. It determined most leasehold improvement expenses as revenue, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to VP-1 stock, and restored the examination of software expenses to the AO, referencing guidelines for distinguishing capital from revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also instructed the AO to reconsider depreciation on software if classified as capital expenditure, based on established principles recognizing software as a tangible asset eligible for depreciation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121777