TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in allowing the Software Consumable Expenses of Rs.4,32,48,000/- relying on the CIT(A)'s decision in the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2001-02 to 2003-04 with appreciating the fact that the CIT(A)'s decision in the assessee's case for AYs 2001-02 to 2003-04 have not been accepted and the Revenue is in appeal for the Hon'ble ITAT; 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the Software Expenses of Rs. 10,55,44,000/- and Hardware Expenses of Rs.4,83,89,000/- without appreciating that the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs Aravali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (259 ITR 30) is applicable in this case; 3.On the facts and in the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. Grounds of Appeal - ITA No. 6963/M/2007 AY. 2004-05 The appellant objects to the order dated 14 August 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) VII, on the following among other grounds of appeal: Deduction under section 80HHE for the purpose of section 115JB 1.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 8OHHE at Rs. Nil as against Rs. 14,94,97,191/- claimed by the appellant for the purpose of computing book profits under section 115JB of the Income tax Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Software development & Consultancy filed its Return of Income on 30-10-2004 declaring total loss of Rs. NIL. Assessment was finalised on 29-12-2006 by the Assessing Officer (AO) determining the income at Rs. NIL where as Book Profit u/s. 115JB was computed at Rs. 62.71 Crores. ITA No. 6822/M/2007 2. The First Ground of Appeal is about Software Consumable Expenses amounting to Rs. 4.32 Crores. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer (AO) found that assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 4.32 Crores under the head 'Software Consumable Expenses'. Following the order for the AY 2003-04 and of earlier years, AO considered the same as 'Capital Expenditure. Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has set aside the matter to the file of the AO. After perusing the order of the 'Amway India' delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra), we are of the opinion that expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature and it was incurred for application software and not for system software. Respectfully following the order relied upon by the AR, we decide Ground No.1 in favour of the assessee. 5. Ground No.2 is about Software Expenses of Rs. 10.55 Crores and Hardware Expenses of Rs. 4.83 Crores. During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee had claimed Rs. 15.38 Crores (10.55 + 4.83) as Software Consumable Expenses/cost of Hardware, AO held that the amount in question was capital expenditure and hence was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, matter should be restored back to the file of the AO to decide the issue on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No.2 is Partly Allowed in favour of the AO. 8. Ground Nos. 3 to 6 pertain to interest leviable u/s. 234B/234C of the Act. Before us, DR fairly accepted that interest u/s. 234B of the Act was not levied by the AO nor the same was agitated before the FAA by the appellant-company. He further submitted that issue of levy of interest u/s. 234C of the Act was decided against the assessee. AR conceded that issue of 234C - interest was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Companies Act. Finally, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Before us, AR submitted that issue was decided in favour of the assessee by various judgments, for allowing 80HHE deduction was to be calculated as per the provisions of 115JB of the Act, that normal provisions of the Act for determining the taxable income were not applicable in the case under consideration. He relied upon the cases of Bhari Information Technology systems P. Ltd., [340 ITR 593 (SC)]; Alkabeer Exports Ltd., 2012-TIOL-09-SC-IT-LB; and Syncome Formulation (I) Ltd (106 ITD 193). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We find that issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Supre....