CIT vs. ERM INDIA PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . . ITA 1225/2011 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. . . . versus . . . ERM INDIA PVT LTD. ..... Respondent . Through Nemo. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 24.11.2011 . . . The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 impugns order dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ERM India Private Limited and relates to assessment year 2006-07. The tribunal by the impugned order has held that the expenditure of Rs.33,27,750/- (was wrongly taken by the Assessing Officer as Rs.33,75,000/-) is Revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. The tribunal while dealing with the aforesaid expenditure has specifically gone into the nature of the expenditure incurred and found that it pertains to payments made for training. The details of the said training expenditure are mentioned in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing paragraphs 9 and 9.1 of the impugned order, which read as under:- . ?9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that as per the invoice in this regard the description of the payment made is the following:- . . . Description . Consultancy rate per day US$ . No. of days . Total cost US$ . Pre-planning London/Exton . 1500 . 2 . 3000 . Planning . 1500 . 3 . 4500 . Data cleansing . 1500 . 5 . 7500 . Project Management Training . 1500 . 10 . 15000 . Data Conversion . 1500 . 9 . 13500 . Finance Training . 1500 . 3 . 4500 . Billing Training . 1500 . 2 . 3000 . One to One PM Training . 1500 . 7 . 10500 . Post Go Live Support . 1500 . 9 . 13500 . . . . . . . . . Total Consultancy Days . . . 50 . 75000 . Total Implementation Costs . . . . . 75000 . VAT @ 0.00% . . . . . 0.00 . Grand Total . . . . . 75000 . . . 9.1 From the above, there is considerable cogency in the submissions of the ld. counsel of the assessee. It is only training cost which has been incurred by the assessee and the same is not liable to be capitalized as software expenses. As noted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ERM Europe Ltd. has provided training to various employees of ERM India P. Ltd. on the usage of GMS (Global Management System) on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software which is owned by BST Consultant Inc. and licensed to ERM Europe Ltd. to be used by ERM Group entities. ERM Europe has provided this training to improve and standardize the quantity of project management, financial management and financial reporting through out the ERM group. For providing this training ERM Europe Ltd. has charged USD 75000. Thus, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that this training does not result into creation or transfer of any right or asset in favour of ERM India Private Ltd. in what so ever manner. It has also been noted that the ownership of the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software is with BST Consultants Inc. The BST Consultants Inc. has licensed the software to ERM Europe Ltd. to be used by ERM Group entities.? . . . 2. The CIT(Appeals) in the first appeal had examined the entire aspect threadbare and had specifically examined each and every expenditure, which has been concurred by the tribunal. Finding of the Assessing Officer is cryptic and bereft of factual details. . 3. In view of the factual findings recorded by the tribunal and CIT (A), which are not disputed, we do not think any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . NOVEMBER 24, 2011 . VKR . $ 2. .