Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1546 - AT - Income TaxDevelopment expenditure allowability - Held that:- We are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO and follow the direction of the Tribunal given for the AY 2006-07. First Ground stands partly allowed. Technical services fee paid to various parties - Nature of expenditure - Held that:- Expenditure was of capital nature and the assessee should be allowed depreciation, as per rules. Staff cost incurred as part of development projects - allowable revenue expenditure Interest on IT refund - decided against assessee Disallowance made u/s. 14A - Held that:- matter has to be restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. There is no need to cite any authority to hold that the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules would not be applicable for the year under appeal. The AO would decide the issue after hearing the assessee Premium on redemption of debenture - Held that:- The issue stands covered against the AO by the judgment delivered in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation (1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court). Expenditure on implementation of SAP ERP system - Held that:- Expenditure incurred on implementation of SAP ERP systems was revenue in nature. See Raychem RPG Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 953 - Bombay High Court) Licence fees paid to SDRC India Private Ltd - allowable revenue expenditure Consultancy charges paid in connection with transport solution group - Held that:- We find that the assessee had made payment in connection with transport solution group for consultancy. The AO has not brought on record anything to prove that the assessee had acquired any IPR/tangible assets. It was plain and simple consultancy. Therefore, there was no justification for the FAA to hold that expenditure was of capital nature. Depreciation on item sold as slum sale - Held that:- It is were purely consequential claim following the orders of the Tribunal for the above-mentioned two AY. We find that to give consequential effect to the order of the Tribunal, the FAA directed the AO to exclude the sale proceeds of assets from block of assets while calculating depreciation. We are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the finding given by the FAA. GOA-5A stands dismissed.
|