TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant submit that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.83,20,821/- treating the said expenditure as capital in nature. On the facts & circumstances of the case the appellant submit that they have incurred revenue expenditure under various heads aggregating to Rs.83,20,821/- for development of "Contents", in the course of their business. The appellant could not successfully market certain contents for which the revenue expenditure is incurred aggregating to Rs.83,20,821/-. The appellant therefore submit that the conclusion reached by the Ld.CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs.83,20,821/- is a capital expenditure is erroneous and such addition may be deleted. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.AR has stated that the expenditure relates to acquisition of rights, license, expenses for development of educational software and other related expenses. In keeping with the company's policy, these expenses are to be capitalized as intellectual property rights (IPR) upon completion of the project. After capitalization, they are amortized over a period of five years. However, during the current year, it is realized that some of these projects are not likely to result in any economic benefits and hence the capital work in progress of these projects is written off and the projects have been abandoned. The capital work in progress written off pertains to certain software under development for educational programs. However, these software are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had claimed same as revenue expenditure - According to assessee, it had started trial production during previous year and made substantial sales and, thus, it was entitled to claim expenses in question as deduction - Assessing Officer disallowed expenses on ground that business of HRC project had not started commercial production - Whether since HRC project was an extension of existing business, revenue expenditure incurred even prior to commercial production had to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes - Whether, further, assessee's claim in respect of interest on capital borrowed and lease rent relating to said business was also to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]". Following the ratios in the said decisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business activity. As the assessee cannot not recover this amount which are reflected in the balance sheet under the head Advances, the amounts have been written off as irrecoverable. As the amounts are paid in the course of business the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the same. On the other hand, the Ld.DR has relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in support of the Revenue's case. He has further stated that the purpose for which the advances are made does not qualify the expenditure as revenue in nature and thus the assessee is not entitled for the deduction. 4.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the details of the advances written of claimed by the assessee is repro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....002-03 now written off. The Byramjee Jeejebhoy Parsee Charitable Institution 2069 Advances to party not recoverable hence written off. 4.3.1 It is relevant to point out that the Ld.CIT(A) in his order has stated that this is clearly not a case of written off debts u/s 36(1)(vii), as writing off advances does not fulfil the criteria of section 36(2). Hence, the claim of the assessee has to be considered under the general provisions of section 28/37(1). The assessee has only given details with regard to write off of Rs.25 lakhs to Krishan Prem Narayan and Rs.7.80 lakhs to Kirti Triveni. Both these advances have been made on capital account for meeting capital expenses. Hence, while writing off the same, they would qualify as capit....