TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70,131/- by the Managing Director of the company. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs. 1,63,96,578/- claimed by the assessee includes an amount of Rs. 7,69,213/- towards Directors travelling expenses. On further verification of the details of the expenses, the AO noted that an amount of Rs. 2,70,131/- relates to travelling expenses of Sri Vijay Shirke, one of the Directors of the company to London. On being questioned by the AO it was submitted that tour was carried out for exploring export market as part of the business necessity. However, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfy that such expenditure was incurr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be made where fringe benefit tax has been paid by the assessee on the said expenses. The learned DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find although the assessee had not stated before the AO regarding the payment of fringe benefit tax he has argued before the learned CIT(A) that no disallowance could be made when fringe benefit tax has been paid on account of such travelling expenses. The submission of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) that fringe benefit tax has been pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Desk Autocad L T 2006 pack of 5 software) is capital expenditure on which depreciation will be allowed @60%. 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the assessment proceedings the AO noted that assessee has debited software expenses of Rs. 4,96,970/- under Miscellaneous Expenses. According to the AO such expenses are basically capital expenditure since depreciation has been specifically provided in respect of same in the depreciation schedule appended to Income Tax Rules. The submission of the assessee that he had only licence to use the software and that it was mere upgradation of the software and therefore the expenditure is in the nature of Revenue expenditure was rejected by the AO. He accordingly disallowed the expenditure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. vide ITA No.4176 of 2009 order dated 04-07-2011. Referring to the said decision he submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Tribunal in deleting the addition in respect of disallowance of software expenditure to the extent of Rs. 23,62,368/- treating the same as Revenue in nature has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. He drew the attention of the Bench to Para No. 2 and 3 of the order which reads as under : "2. As regards the first question, ITA relyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. In our view, no fault can be found in the aforesaid order of ITAT holding that software expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure". 12.1 Referring to the above he submitted that since the software expenditure incurred by the assessee is for running the business more efficiently, therefore, in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court the expenditure should be treated as Revenue in nature. 12.2 The learned DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the decision of the Jurisdictional High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the lease agreement along with relevant English Translation which is placed at Paper Book Page Nos. 12 to 28 and submitted that the entire lease rent of Rs. 8,45,250/- has been paid on 20-05-2005. Referring to the decision of the Visakhapatnam Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport reported in 136 ITD 23 (SB) he submitted that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which has been actually paid during the previous year w....