Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: customized software in Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs Dcit, Chennai on 8 May, 2020Matching Fragments
ITA Nos.1406 & 1407/Chny/2015 :- 3 -:
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have noted that 'Digital Content' comprises of software that is a tangible asset.
4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making a distinction between 'canned' software and 'customized' software which is irrelevant to decide the issue of grant of depreciation.
5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) incorporates the concepts of 'canned' and 'customized' software without noting that there is no such distinction in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules relating to the grant of depreciation.
6. The reliance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on various technical literature is of no relevance in deciding the present issue. In so far as the issue at hand relates to grant of depreciation on software, nothing turns on whether the software is canned or customized. In fact, the distinction between canned and customized software proceeds from the admitted position that the Digital Content is, prima facie, software, eligible for depreciation at 60% as claimed.
7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not noting that intangible assets have been specifically defined under Part D of the Appendix to the Income Tax Rules as being knowhow, patent, copyright, trade mark, license or commercial rights of similar nature. On the other hand, Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules clarifies in Note 7 thereof that Information Technology Software is eligible for depreciation @ 60%. There is thus no scope or justification in confusing tangible and intangible assets that have been demarcated clearly.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have noted that 'Digital Content' comprises of software that is a tangible asset.
ITA Nos.1406 & 1407/Chny/2015 :- 4 -:
4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making a distinction between 'canned' software and 'customized' software which is irrelevant to decide the issue of grant of depreciation.
5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) incorporates the concepts of 'canned' and 'customized' software without noting that there is no such distinction in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules relating to the grant of depreciation.
6. The reliance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on various technical literature is of no relevance in deciding the present issue. In so far as the issue at hand relates to grant of depreciation on software, nothing turns on whether the software is canned or customized. In fact, the distinction between canned and customized software proceeds from the admitted position that the Digital Content is, prima facie, software, eligible for depreciation at 60% as claimed.