TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri M. J. Shah A. R. For the Respondent : Shri T. Sankar Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat dated 10.3.2010 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The facts as culled out from the lower authorities are as under. 3. Assessee is a company carrying on the business of brokers. Sub brokers consultants of financial products. The assessee electronically filed its return of income on 20.10.2007 showing total income of Rs. 5,85,78,391/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 15.12.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 6,19,91,100/-. Aggrieved by the order of Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epreciation on it. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer while holding as under:- 2.3. I have considered the submission made by the appellant and the observation of the Assessing Officer. Since there is a specific provisions for allowing depreciation on software expenses, the claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure cannot be allowed. The new depreciation rule has come with effect from assessment year 2003-04 onwards as amended in assessment year 2006-07 and hence the decision cited above by the appellant are not applicable. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the software upgradation should be given as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is required to be seen is the real intent and purpose of the expenditure and whether the expenditure results in creation of fixed capital for the assessee. In the case in hand, from the services as provided by the service provider no fixed capital for the assessee is created. Moreover, the software developed during the course of providing services would remain under control and ownership of the service provider. The assessee would not have any right on the same, in this view of the matter , we do not find any infirmity into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed". 9. Since the facts of the case under appeal are identical to that of 2008-09, we therefore respectfully following the aforesaid order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
