TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork Controls India Limited (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that:- The only reason given by the learned Standing Counsel is that in the present case, the data relied upon by the assessee pertains to two years; whereas, in Rotork Controls India Limited (supra) only one year data was considered. The argument fail to notice in that in this case, the warrantee was for two years. Even otherwise, this reason does not appeal to us. Data and figures should truly and correctly reflect and support the claim for provision for warranty. It should not be excessive. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court provides for and stipulates adjustment, in case an excessive or higher claim is made by an assessee. It is not the case of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first issue/contention relates to the ?Model Know How Fee? of ₹ 61,08,446/- which was claimed by the assessee as a revenue expenditure, but disallowed by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure and covered under Section 35AB of the Act. This issue has been decided against the revenue and in favour of the respondent- assessee, in the earlier years by the Delhi High Court. Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The aforesaid factual position stated by the Tribunal in the impugned order on the aforesaid question is accepted as correct by the Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. The second question relates to the provision of warranty. This issue has also been decided against the Revenue by an earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essive or wrong claim was made. Figures for warranty claims actually made would be available with the Revenue but were not pointed out to the Tribunal or before us. 5. The third issue is whether expenditure of ₹ 51,53,563/- incurred on purchasing software, should have been treated as capital expense or was revenue expenditure as held by the Tribunal. The aforesaid expenditure was for purchase of application software and not on customerized or operating software. Tribunal in the impugned judgment has followed decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass, (2012) 186 DLT 213. It is not shown to us that the software in question had enduring benefit and why and for what reason, the software purchased should be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
