Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) CIT Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC)
(ii) Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34
(iii) Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 13 (Bom)
(iv) IBM India Limited Vs. CIT (A) (2007) 290 ITR (AT) 183 (Bangalore) (AY. 1998-99) .

5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that in the A.Y. 2003-04, Appendix-I was amended to insert (5) in part III of Part-A (Tangible Assets) in it. He further observed that as per the amendment, computer including computer software were included in the block of assets on which 60% depreciation was made allowable, in other words, expenditure incurred for acquisition of computer software has to be capitalized statutorily on which depreciation was allowable @ 60%. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even if on principle, if it was to be agreed that the application software having lifespan of only two years suffers from obsolescence and cannot be held to be a capital asset providing any enduring benefit since the statute since A.Y. 2003-04 has been amended to treat such items/goods as capital asset, so it was binding on the AO to hold that the expenditure on purchase of computer software has to be considered as capital expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the AO to allow depreciation @ 60% amounting to Rs.1,17,62,359 on the said computer software and balance of the addition amounting to RS.78,41,569 was confirmed.