TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he action of AO by making disallowance of Rs. 4,07,400 by treating software expenses as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in not allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,73,691/- on COGEN I & II, by re-computing the profits of the undertakings by adjusting the sales value of the power produced and supplied by the undertakings. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the charging of interest by Assessing officer u/s. 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the charging of interest by Assessing Officer u/s.234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s having no independent function and are therefore of revenue nature. Expenditure on software for billet heater programming was of capital nature since it resulted into an enduring benefit to the appellant. There is no basis or supporting evidence for appellant's claim that life of software was less than two years. To sum up, out of expenditure of Rs. 14,90,737/-, expenditure of Rs. 10,83,337/- is held to be of revenue nature and expenditure of Rs. 4,07,400/- is held to be of capital nature. Depreciation on expenditure for procuring software, i.e. on expenditure of , Rs. 4,07,400/- is to be allowed as applicable." 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have noticed that ld. CIT(A) has held that e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue in question was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Alembic Ltd and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat issue in the case of Alembic Ltd in Tax Appeal No. 471 of 2009. In this connection, we have noticed that Co-ordinated Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad vide ITA No. 1912/Ahd/2012 dated 09-12- 2016 in the case of Alembic Ltd on the similar issue has decided as under:- "17.1 Ld. Counsel as well as GE and unit two since both had far Only the assessee contends that the issue in question stands covered in favour of the assessee in its own case by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide a consolidated order dated 20.07.2016 in Tax Appeal No. 471 to 474 of 2009, In Tax Appeal No. 471 and 473,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t High Court upheld the claim of the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's ground in this behalf by following observations:- "11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also considered the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. Taking into consideration the judements of this court and other High Courts, cited above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we answer question (C) and (D) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 17.4 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the au....