2022 (11) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities disallowing the depreciation claimed a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- in respect of computer software and consequently passing a perverse order under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities disallowing the expenses of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- incurred towards the business development and consequently passing a perverse order under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Heard Sri Annamalai S, learned Advocate for the assessee and Sri Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a Consultant in the field of Civil Engineering. He filed his return of in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 SC (paras 24 and 25). 6. Sri Dilip for the Revenue argued opposing the appeal contending, inter alia¸ that the letter written by the supplier of the software clearly indicates that the software was not updated and therefore, the assessee could not have used the same. He also made an alternative submission that even if it is construed that the assessee was using the older version, the assessee was not entitled for 60% depreciation because the total use of the software for the relevant period was less than 180 days. 7. With regard to the expenditure for business development, he submitted that the expenditure is claimed to have been made in cash. The purpose of expenditure is not explained. Therefore, AO ....