Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the expenses as revenue in nature and, thereby, deleted the addition by observing as under:-

ITA Nos.2393 & 5248/Del/2011 "5.2. Reasons for decision:
The software up-gradation expenses incurred by the appellant was not customized software giving enduring benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the facts of the case are similar to the case of GIT vs. GE Capital Services Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra). The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced below:
"3. The only question that has arisen in this case pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 is that expenditure incurred by the assessee on software was treated by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure. The Tribunal was of the view that due to technological changes and the need to upgrade the software on a regular basis it cannot be said that the software was of an enduring nature.
4. We are informed that the software for which the expenditure was incurred was MS Office, which is not a custom built software for the assessee and it is common knowledge that this software requires regular upgradation.
5. We can understand that where customized software is prepared, then it could be of an enduring nature, but in this case MS Office is not customized software and it cannot be said that the software does not require frequent upgradation.
6. We are of the view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in taking the view that it did. "

In the present case also, the expenses are incurred for up-gradation of software which was not customized software. They were general software available off the shelf. In view of this, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the AO is directed to allow the expenses and addition made on this regard is to be deleted."