CIT Vs. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) dt. 6 -1 -2012 raising following questions of law for our consideration:

(2.) WE may take -up the questions seriatim. Regarding question No. 1, counsel for the revenue agreed that such a question was considered in Tax Appeal No. 506 of 2012 and such question was rejected making following observations: As far as the question No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal by making following observations remanded the matter to the assessing officer made in the Tax Appeal No. 509, adjudicated today: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) on proper examination of evidences and material rightly came to the conclusion that software is intangible asset and was loaded in the system of machine. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rightly held that installation of software could be checked by the technical person whether it was loaded in the system or not. Therefore, the finding in the survey cannot be relied upon. Even the assessing officer has accepted the fact that some of the software were developed locally and installed in the system. The finding of fact recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals) find support from the valuation report of assets prepared by Dalal Mott Macdonald which was found in survey which indicated that software developed and installed by the assessee in the system. The assessee produced all the vouchers and receipt for the same which was also examined by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Nothing is produced before us during the course of arguments to rebut the findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing depreciation in respect of all the software purchased and installed during the year. This issue had also arisen in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012. We have not deemed it fit to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in view of the fact that it is only a remand to the assessing officer. This issue also meets similar fate and therefore, no interference is required.

(3.) QUESTION No. 2 was considered in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012 and not entertained. Following observations are relevant: With respect to question No. 2, the Tribunal set aside the view of the assessing officer as confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in the following manner: