Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Arawali Constructions Co. (P.) Ltd. on 9 July, 2002

Ibm India Ltd., (Amalgamated With Ibm ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 2 March, 2006

Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT 224 ITR 342 (SC) Eimco KCP Ltd. v. CIT 242 ITR 659 (SC) CIT v. Arawali Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. 259 ITR 30 (Raj.) 3.4 In reply, learned Counsel for assessee submitted that the eligibility of depreciation on intangible assets Under Section 32(1)(ii) has not altered the situation. Earlier the amount paid for know-how patents, copyrights, trademarks licences etc. were though capital expenditure was not eligible for depreciation. With introduction of Section 32(1)(ii), the same are eligible for claiming depreciation. This by itself does not mean that whenever the payment is made for intangible assets, the same always amounts to capital expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 42 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Dataxcess Intergrated Technoloty Ltd, ... vs Assessee on 2 February, 2010

6. After considering the nature of the expenditure, we are of the opinion that upgrading existing software is not acquiring of new asset. The facts in the case of CIT vs. Aravali Constructions P. Ltd. 259 ITR 30 were different. There the assessee company acquired a software for the first time to use it in its mining operations alongwith technical know-how. On those facts, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that the expenditure was capital in nature. However, in the present case the assessee was already using the software and the same was upgraded by later version. In our view the expenditure is rightly considered as revenue expenditure by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thermax Ltd. ,, Pune vs Addl.Cit,Range 8, Akurdi,, Pune on 12 March, 2019

"9.3. After careful consideration, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant. The nature of softwares purchased by the appellant shows that the appellant is going to derive benefit from the same at least for more than one year. It is also seen that 60% of the expenditure has already been allowed by the Assessing Officer during this year by way of depreciation. The stand taken by the Assessing Officer is also found supported by the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arawali Construction (P) Ltd., I, therefore, see no reason to make any interference in the action of the Assessing Officer and the same is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Chennai vs Kasturi & Sons Limited, Chennai on 18 August, 2017

38. On the contrary, Shri R. Jeyakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that if the assessee acquired licence for use of software, then the expenditure may be on the revenue field. In this case, the assessee acquired software itself, therefore, it is a benefit arising to the assessee. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., it has to be treated as capital expenditure. Since the assessee has purchased software, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 30 and also decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in I Soft R&D Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.465/Mds/07.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs India Equipment Leasing Ltd. on 10 March, 2006

34. We have heard both the parties. In this case the assessee has leased out computer along with software. The life of software is not short as held in the case of Arawalli Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Company Law Institute (supra). Therefore, the software purchased will be capital in nature. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by authorities below.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 54 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 October, 2004

73. Now the only question is whether purchase of software is a capital asset. There is no dispute that software is a capital asset. There is no dispute that software is an intangible asset. Hardware, commonly called as computer, is a tangible asset which by itself cannot function. The computer can function only with the help of software. Software is akin to know-how as held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Arawali Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). In this judgment, it has been clearly held that expenditure on purchase of software is a capital expenditure. There is no contrary judgment on this aspect of issue. Hence, it has to be held that software is an asset. Admittedly, the assessee is not in the business of software. Hence, we are further of the view that software was a capital asset as far as the present assessee is concerned. The IT Rules, 1962, as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, rather helps the Revenue and not the assessee inasmuch as it provides for depreciation on software at the rate of 60 per cent. By providing higher depreciation, it cannot be said that prior to 1st April, 2003, it was revenue expenditure. It was always a capital asset. Prior to 1st April, 2003, the assessee was entitled to normal rate of depreciation which was enhanced to 60 per cent by the amendment considering the rapid wear and tear.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 90 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next