Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 526 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of the Research & Development expenses - CIT(A) granting relief of 50% - Held that:- As perused the copy of the ledger account of the R & D expenditure, it is very clear that the expenditure incurred is in the nature of routine expenditure for maintenance of Quality Control Department. Obviously, this expenditure had not resulted in creation of an asset of enduring nature and therefore, we hold that the entire expenditure should be allowed as Revenue expenditure. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of TS 16949 certification charges - Held that:- From the perusal of the material available on record as well as the expenditure furnished before the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that the expenditure incurred is revenue in nature and does not create an asset of enduring nature and therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire expenditure. - Decided against revenue. Capitalization of the expenditure incurred on software development - Held that:- The issue in appeal is squarely covered by the Special Bench decision in the case of Amway Products Vs. DCIT (2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C ). Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same as a revenue expenditure - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of repair and maintenance expenditure of the building - Held that:- As a result of this expenditure no new asset had been created and the expenditure was incurred mainly for the purpose of maintaining the existing buildings. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore Vs. CIT (1997 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) is squarely applicable.- Decided against revenue. Disallowance of commission paid to Managing Director - Held that:- It appears from the material on record that the commission to the Managing Director was paid on par with the other employees of the company and therefore the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii) have no application. The ratio laid down in the case of AMD Mertplas Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, (2011 (12) TMI 320 - Delhi High Court ) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. - Decided against revenue. Taxability of DEPB incentives on the exports made - Held that:- This issues is no more res integra and is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Topman Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) wherein held that the DEPB credit chargeable as income under Section 28(iiib) in the year in which the assesee applied for DEPB credit against the exports made and therefore, we restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the income on account of DEPB credit should be taken into account only in the year in which the assessee had applied for the credit against the export made. Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|