TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 expenditure as revenue under Section 37 of the Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fice 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 assessee is a licensee, the ownership of MS Office so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 invested in the subsidiary company, namely, M/s iLink Systems UK.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 utilization of funds for assessee's own business. Since it c....