2016 (6) TMI 1493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed u/s. 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Revenue has raised sole substantive ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing depreciation for software license at the rate of 60% instead of 25% allowable as per Income Tax Rules and further erred on relying on the judicial decisions which are not relevant to the assessee's case. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of data processing, prepress services and export of software and filed return of income electronically on 27.09.2012 with total income of Rs. 16,27,41,050/- and was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the grounds, arguments, facts of the case, findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, and written submissions with the judicial decisions of Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT 111 ITR 112 and Navneet Publications India Ltd in ITA No. 1137/Mum/2010, and found that similar issue in assessee case was decided favorably and observed at para 7.2.1 of the order:- ''7.2.1. Further, the appellant's Authorised Representative submitted that the same issue was decided in favor of the appellant by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the earlier A.Y. 2010-2011 vide order in IAT No. 1889/2013-14 dated 31.12.2014. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the above order of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....computer software license are different as the software takes the character of tangible asset were as software license is a intangible asset and depreciation is allowable @25% as per part B of Appendix 1 of depreciation table and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing depreciation @60% relying on the judicial decisions not relevant to the facts of the assessee and prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Contra, the ld. Authorised Representative relied on the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-2011 allowed in favour of the assessee on similar issue and submitted judicial decisions and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 7. We heard the rival submi....