TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,39,081/- to the total income of the assessee being amount received post settlement of claims. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in observing that Rs. 2,04,39,081/- is not the income of A.Y.2008-09 but represents an amount held in trust by the appellant in a fiduciary capacity for the exporters/banks. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in observing that assessee has reversed and capitalised the expenditure on software expenses of Rs. 26,59,715. 4. Whether on the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of India. The company is engaged in the business of Insurance of Export Credit Risk of exporters in India and extending different types of insurance / guarantee covers to the banks and financial institutions in India for facilitating the credit facilities to the exporters. Being in the business of insurance, the income of assessee is liable to be computed u/s.44 of the Act read with First Schedule and Rule 6E of the Income Tax Rules. The income of the assessee was assessed by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 16,32,24,66,870/- under the normal provision of the Act and an amount of Rs. 699,61,02,649/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Since the assessee was not satisfied with the certain additions, therefore assessee filed the appeal before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee makes efforts to recover the amount due from Central banks abroad where money remitted by the importers are held on account of exchange restrictions or lack of foreign exchange in the hands of concerned Central banks. In the previous year relevant to A.Y.2007- 08, the appellant received a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,04,24,036/- from the Central Banks located abroad, that represented amounts remitted to the Central Banks by importers of goods from India. Such lump sum amount received did not contain the names of exporters and the amounts that pertained to them. Pending identification of the exporters and their amounts, the appellant reflected the same in its balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2009, relevant to the A.Y.2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& 4 :- 5. The revenue has challenged the deletion of software expenses to the tune of Rs. 26,59,715/- and disallowance of Rs. 10,63,886/- being net amount of capitalised and depreciation allowed. The assessee claimed the expenditure on software expenses to the tune of Rs. 26,59,715/-. The Assessing Officer treated the same as intangible asset and allowed the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 15,95,829/- and disallowed the difference to the tune of Rs. 10,63,886/- (Rs.26,59,715/- - Rs. 15,95,829/-). At the very outset learned representative of the assessee has argued that this issue has also been covered by the assessee's own case in ITA No.1971/Mum/2011 dated 11.12.2015 for A.Y.2007-08. Copy of order perused. Finding of the ITAT's order on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in ITA No.1971/Mum/2011 in the assessee's own case, it is not in dispute that the co-ordinate bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has treated that software expenses as revenue in nature and allowed the same. No distinguishable facts has been placed on record. No any other order which is contrary to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1971/Mum/2011 in the assessee's own case has been produced. Therefore, in the said circumstance by following the observations of co-ordinate bench we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the expenses and allowed the same. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of assessee and against the revenue. ISSUE NO.5 & 6 :- 6. According to these issues the....