Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 45 - AT - Income TaxStamp Duty disallowed – Whether stamp duty charges are included within the scope of the expenditure enumerated u/s 35D(2)(c) - Held that:- The stamp duty charges claimed as deduction by the assessee included the charges pertaining to both the issue of bonus shares and the IPO - the expenditure related to the issue of bonus shares is revenue expenditure as held in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus General Insurance Corporation [2006 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME Court] - the items of expenditure mentioned in section 35D(2)(c) of the Act is only illustrative and not restrictive – following the decision in Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Shree Synthetics Limited [1985 (11) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - thus, all expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of IPO, etc. including stamp duty to be allowable expenditure u/s 35D of the Act - stamp duty charges incurred by the assessee for the public issue of shares etc. is allowable as deduction u/s 35D of the Act – Decided against Revenue. Deduction u/s.80JJA – Held that:- Section 80JJAA of the Act allows for deduction of additional wages paid to new workmen for an industrial undertaking - a company that is engaged in development, design and manufacture of software should be considered as being an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80JJAA of the Act - As the assessee is engaged in the development and manufacture of software, the assessee is covered within the definition of industrial undertaking - the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s.80JJAA in respect of salary paid to the software engineers not employed in the supervisory role – CIT(A) had taken note of the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka and concluded that as per the notification issued, the assessee company engaged in the development of software is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - the decision of the CIT (A) is upheld in allowing the assessee deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act – Decided against Revenue. Deduction u/s.10A – Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the business of mobile value added services, which involve 'content development' in its STP unit - the assessee has a dedicated studio in its STP unit where music related content is developed - The assessee also procures music and other content from third parties - The assessee also uses other advanced equipments which includes several hardware and systems like Sound Cards, Monitors, MIDI Controllers, Microphones, etc. which are used for development of content - These equipments, both hardware and software systems, are used for processing before it is made available for use by the customers - Once all the activities in the process are complete, the mobile compatible content is uploaded on the software platforms in the servers - the assessee's activity of "developing content" and "conversion of the procured content into mobile readable format" would qualify to be classified as "Content Development" or "Data Processing" specified in CBDT's Notification NO.11521 and therefore the assessee can be considered as rendering IT Enabled Services. The content developed by the assessee is uploaded on software platforms which are then transferred to the servers situated outside India from where it is accessed by mobile subscribers of that country – it would qualify as exports for the purposes of section 10A of the Act - the assessee satisfies the twin conditions of export of computer software and repatriation of exports proceeds in convertible foreign exchange as prescribed in section 10A of the Act - the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.10A of the Act – Decided against Revenue. Legal & Professional Charges for conducting due diligence for acquisition - Held that:- The expenditure has been incurred in conducting due diligence, in preparation of a feasibility report on Vox Mobili, France in which investments are being made leading to its acquisition- following the decision in Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1353 - ITAT DELHI] - payments in relation to due diligence and risk analysis of potential targets would not be capital in nature and expenditure is incurred in the ordinary course of business of the assessee and accordingly is revenue in nature - the expenditure incurred by the assessee for conducting due diligence in report of Vox Mobili, France which was to be acquired by the assessee is revenue in nature and is accordingly allowed as a deductible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. Legal and Professional Charges for filing patent application – Held that:- Following the decision in Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay Versus Finlay Mills Limited [1951 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court Ltd.] - in respect of trademarks, expenses incurred for the purpose of registration of trademarks goes to protect the trademark and not create the trademark per se, the same analogy would apply to expenses incurred for filing patent application; i.e. that expenditure would go to protect the patent and not create the patent per se - the expenditure incurred as legal charges for filing the patent application is revenue expenditure incurred in the course of the assessee's business and is to be allowed as a deduction – Decided in favour of assessee. Adjustment in Depreciation – Whether MRBs are to be classified as 'plant and machinery' or 'computers' for the purposes of depreciation - Held that:- The function of MRBs is to support a combination of functions, performed in conjunction with the computer and servers - The MRBs are boards which are connected to computer servers which assist in receiving calls and would function only when attached to the computer - The MRBs increase the working capacity of the computers to the extent the computers receive calls and convert them into digital form - The MRBs work in conjunction with and as a part of the computer servers and cannot, in any way, be called as 'telecom equipment'- DCIT V Datacraft India Ltd.[2010 (7) TMI 642 - ITAT, MUMBAI ] - a distinction has been drawn between a computer component being a necessary accessory to be called a "computer component" and not being a necessary component - The MRBs operate along with the servers and computers and are a necessary component of the "computer system" - The MRB cannot function without the computers and the computers cannot perform the necessary functions required in the case on hand without the presence of the MRBs - the MRBs are to be classified as "computers" for the purposes of the claim of depreciation @ 60% - Decided in favour of Assessee.
|