2018 (1) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to assessment years 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since common issue arises for consideration in all these appeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. The common issue arises for consideration for all the three assessment years is with regard to expenditure incurred by the assessee towards licence fee paid for using MS Office software. 3. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee purchased licence for use of MS Office software from M/s Power Centre Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has subsequently renewed the licence for use of MS Office software for using the same in the business. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee claimed the expenditu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed the same in its business. By purchasing MS Office software, the assessee has not become owner of the software. The ownership of MS Office software remained with Microsoft company. The assessee has to necessarily renew the licence periodically for using the same in the business. Merely because the assessee is using MS Office software as operating software in its system, it does not mean that MS Office software is the capital asset in the hands of the assessee-company. All assets / licence for use of software cannot be construed as capital asset merely because it gives an enduring benefit. By using MS Office software in the business of the assessee, the assessee gets enduring benefit in the course of earning of profit. So long as the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed his reliance on the judgment of Himachal Pradesh in CIT v. H.P. Mineral And Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 111. 9. On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the income from investment made in subsidiary company of UK was exempted from taxation in India, therefore, the loss cannot be allowed while computing the total income. According to the Ld. D.R., the loss on diminution in value of investment in UK is not an allowable expenditure, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,04,289/-. 10. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee admittedly invest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 47,64,549/- to its sister concern. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee is holding substantial shares in its sister concern. The sister concern was closing its business due to continuous loss, therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the advance given by the assessee could not be recovered. The Assessing Officer without recording any reason has simply rejected the claim of the assessee. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, the Ld. representative submitted that the money was advanced to its subsidiary company and the same was used by the subsidiary company for its business, therefore, the same has to be considered as u....