TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 95,43,308/- on account of software expenses. The assessee company is engaged in the business of shipping agent and also provides container freight station(CFS) services, and crewing services. It has debited software expenses towards software license cost, software upradation charges, server support charges, on call services, engineering charges, software development maintenance cost, software installation charges, etc. for sums aggregating Rs. 1,06,83,574/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee admitted that such expenses are capital in nature except for certain expenses aggregating Rs. 11,40,266/- which are revenue in nature. However, assessing officer treated the entire expendit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... result into creation of a fixed capital or giving any enduring benefit for a longtime, as these software licenses and programs keeps on changing and are updated from time to time as per the requirement and the growing needs of the business. The Software does not bring forth any new source of income, albeit enable the profit making structure to work in a more efficacious manner. However, in this case though the assessee claimed it as revenue expenditure, but before the AO it has itself accepted that most of the software expenses can be treated as capital expenditure. Such an admission has been retracted by challenging this issue before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before us. It is a trite law that mere admission or acquiescence by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck and cannot be taken to the balance sheet as done by the assessee. Accordingly he added the said amount u/s 145A, which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 8. Before us, learned counsel Shri Niraj Sheth submitted that section 145A does not apply to service tax, but only on valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory. It has no applicability in the cases of services. In support of his contention he strongly relied upon the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Pharma Search Vs. ACIT ITA No. 7303/M/2010. 9. On the other hand Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding of the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A). The amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 71,48,625/-. The learned counsel pointed out that the assessee had made a provision of customers claim of Rs. 71,48,625/- in the A.Y. 2005-06. This provision was suo motu disallowed by the assessee in its computation of income filed along with return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06. At that time the assessee was Maersk Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. which was merged with the present assessee under the scheme of the amalgamation w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The present assessee reversed the aforesaid provision in its account for the year ending 31.03.2006. Since the provision was already disallowed in the earlier assessment year, the assessee included the reversal in its computation of income for A.Y. 2006-07. What the AO has done, is that, he has added ....