TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre['CIT (A)'] has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of INR 5,12,06,771 made by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') on the basis of individua transaction Statement (ITS) data. 1.2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the Appellant's explanation given by Appellant before the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the explanation given by the Appellant before the Ld. AO in the remand proceedings and also the explanation given before the CIT (A). 2. Short grant of TDS credit of INR 57,122/- 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in granting TDS credit only to the extent of INR 1,43,83,292 as against INR 1,44,40,414 claimed by the Appellant in the Return of Income (ROI) filed, thus resulting into the short grant of TDS credit amounting to INR 57,122. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of operating private FM (Frequency Modulation) Radio Station and had filed its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the difference in the amount. 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee had failed to reconcile the discrepancy arising in the ITS and with that of the P & L account of the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has entered into 39 transactions as per the AIR with 576 parties with respect to Form 26AS. Though the assessee tried its best to reconcile its ITS details with its accounting record, the same became futile for various reason such as the difference in the method of accounting followed by its customers, delayed deduction or payment of TDS, the date when the customer has deducted tax did not match with the books of accounts of the assessee company, variation in time of recognition of expenses by the deductor and the income by the assessee and the tax deducted on amount whether including/excluding service tax. It is further observed that as per the ITS, the income reflected is Rs. 75.06 crores, whereas the total income offered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance charges, support service, updation charges, content distribution charges, internet charges, charges paid for back up data, etc. which are not in the nature of enduring benefit. The assessee further contended that the said expenses are incurred periodically and the impugned expenses relates to only the year under consideration. 15. On the contrary, the ld. A.O. observed that the assessee is not the owner of the software but had merely procured only the license to use the software which are in the nature of 'intangible assets' as per clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the I. T. Act which according to the ld. A.O. had enduring benefit to the assessee which are in the nature of capital expenditure. The ld. A.O. further held that the assessee is entitled to claim only depreciation on the same @ 25%. 16. The first appellate authority allowed the assessee's claim for the reason that the co-ordinate bench for A.Y. 2009-10 have dealt with the said issue and has held the same to be a 'revenue expenses' which are allowable deduction. 17. Upon considering the rival contentions, it is observed that this issue is no longer res integra and the same has been dealt with by the co-o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital in nature. The A.O. is directed to allow deduction of such expenses treating the same as business expenses. The AO. is also directed to allow expenditure of Rs. 1,07,24,395/- as revenue expenditure. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed. 18. From the above, it is observed that the Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 had followed the order of the ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10 where on identical issue, the same has been treated as 'revenue expenditure' and not 'capital in nature' having enduring benefit to the assessee. On no change in the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to take a consistent view as that taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09. Hence, ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. Ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue pertains to the interest received by the assessee on bank FDs amounting to Rs. 1,59,32,000/- as per the P & L account of the assessee which the ld. A.O. treated as 'income from other sources'. The assessee contended that the assessee was in an obligation to provide bank guarantee to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, pertaining to the license granted to the assessee for which the....