CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

259 ITR 30High Court2003#2708 most cited

What is CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the acquisition, development, or purchase of computer software is classified as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. · 259 ITR 30 · computer software expenditure · software acquisition · software development · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · classification of expenditure · business deductions · Rajasthan High Court

Issues it is cited on

related party transactioncomputer softwareput to usesection 36(1)(vii)comparable companiesmost appropriate methodarm's length pricesection 92carevenue expenditurecapital expendituretransfer pricing adjustmenttnmm

Judgments citing CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 145Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40Section 90(2)

…f the leased premises and which cannot be removed by the Appellant after the expiry of the lease period.  With regard to software development costs, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan HC, in the case of CIT vs. Aravali Constructions (259 ITR 30) and held that expenses are capital in nature. 3.4 Appellant’s submissions  The Appellant submits that this issue is covered in favor of the Appellant by the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000, wherein the Tribunal following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…the field of computer software new devices and user friendly concepts are introduced which are fast changing and no software could be of enduring nature without appreciating that the Rajasthan High Court has, in the case of Arawali Constructions Co. P. Ltd. (259 ITR 30), held that expenditure incurred in the acquisition of computer software is a capital expenditure and, in view of the same, the Assessing Officer rightly treated software expenses of Rs.10,75,000/- as a capital expenditure and disallowed the same. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the As…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…the field of computer software new devices and user friendly concepts are introduced which are fast changing and no software could be of enduring nature without appreciating that the Rajasthan High Court has, in the case of Arawali Constructions Co. P. Ltd. (259 ITR 30), held that expenditure incurred in the acquisition of computer software is a capital expenditure and, in view of the same, the Assessing Officer rightly treated software expenses of Rs.10,75,000/- as a capital expenditure and disallowed the same. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the As…

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…logged on to any of the EDA software packages and hence it is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The AO, however, disallowed the expenditure treating it as capital in nature, relying on the following case laws:- i. CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd., 259 ITR 30 (Raj) ii. Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT, 111 ITD 112 (Del)(SB). 7. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee based on his order in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR submitted that EDA software is purchased and charged to the assessee on usage b…

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…logged on to any of the EDA software packages and hence it is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The AO, however, disallowed the expenditure treating it as capital in nature, relying on the following case laws:- i. CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd., 259 ITR 30 (Raj) ii. Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT, 111 ITD 112 (Del)(SB). 7. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee based on his order in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR submitted that EDA software is purchased and charged to the assessee on usage b…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments(India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…07.2011 as to how it has applied the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd in its case. 5.4 The computer software expenses have been held to be capital in nature by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (259 ITR 30). The Hon'ble Court held as under: "The fact on record is that the payment of Rs 1,38,360/- was not made as consultancy fee to Hindustan Computers Ltd_ in fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of softwa…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Grasim Industries Limited v. Addl. CIT, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5th floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2nd floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 PAN: AAACG4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. CIT, Range 6(3), v. Grasim Industries Limited, 5th floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2nd floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-40002…

Prakash S Patil, Panvel vs. Asst CIT Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, assessee’s appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7285/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 32Section 37(1)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. No.7285/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Prakash S Patil Vs. ACIT C/o Life Line Hospital Panvel Circle Sai Arcade, Opp S.T Stand Aaykar Bhawan, Panvel-410 206 Khanda Colony New Panvel-410 206 PAN : ABUPP8615P (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee by Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 31.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 06 .09.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-2 dated 01.10.2019 and pertains to Assessme…

ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4300/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. No.4300/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT-11(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Room No. 427, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 3rd Floor, The Leela 400020. Galleria, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. I.T.A. No.4135/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-8(3) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACE2175M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)…

Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 4135/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. No.4300/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT-11(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Room No. 427, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 3rd Floor, The Leela 400020. Galleria, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. I.T.A. No.4135/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-8(3) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACE2175M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…treated it as capital in nature. 10. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in allowing relief of Rs. 2600000/- while assessing officer has rightly addressed same and allowed depreciation accordingly which finds support from decision reported in 259 ITR 30 (Raj) wherein decision of Hon‟ble Apex court reported in 166 ITR 66 was followed. 11. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing AO to treat sum of Rs. 14389000/- and Rs. 34364/- as business income which was correctly assessed under head Income from other source. 12. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…treated it as capital in nature. 10. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in allowing relief of Rs. 2600000/- while assessing officer has rightly addressed same and allowed depreciation accordingly which finds support from decision reported in 259 ITR 30 (Raj) wherein decision of Hon‟ble Apex court reported in 166 ITR 66 was followed. 11. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing AO to treat sum of Rs. 14389000/- and Rs. 34364/- as business income which was correctly assessed under head Income from other source. 12. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…treated it as capital in nature. 10. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in allowing relief of Rs. 2600000/- while assessing officer has rightly addressed same and allowed depreciation accordingly which finds support from decision reported in 259 ITR 30 (Raj) wherein decision of Hon‟ble Apex court reported in 166 ITR 66 was followed. 11. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing AO to treat sum of Rs. 14389000/- and Rs. 34364/- as business income which was correctly assessed under head Income from other source. 12. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in…

DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. M/S. Lovelock & Lewes, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1021/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)

…quired to be decided by applying a functional test and onus in this regard was on the assessee-company, which it failed to discharge. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Limited [259 ITR 30], wherein it was held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on acquiring computer software was rightly disallowed being expenditure of capital nature. Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2010-2011 M/s. Lovelock & Lewes 30. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee engaged in the profession of Chartered A…

CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (259 ITR 30) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax