← All Phrases

“computer software”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10BSection 10B Explanation 2 / Section 80HHF951 judgments

The decision most relied on for computer software is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on computer software

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.
212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT
111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
127
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on computer software, including software licenses, at the rate of 60%.

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. v. DDIT
11 SOT 578 · 2007 · ITAT
99
citing judgments

Payments for data processing services using a mainframe computer and specialized software are not taxable as fees for the use of equipment if the Indian entity lacks independent rights or physical access to use the computer or software.

Judgments citing computer software

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company is an exporter of computer software and related services. Reliance in this regard was placed on various decisions as listed below: o CIT Vs Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp and Kausch ... payments made by the Company (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company is an exporter of computer software and related services. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company is an exporter of computer software and related services. Reliance in this regard was placed on various decisions as listed below: o CIT Vs Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp and Kausch ... payments made by the Company (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company is an exporter of computer software and related services. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3646/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.1,65,65,066/- incurred on acquiring the computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing these expenses by not appreciating the various judicial precedents ... well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.2,12,74,929/- incurred on expenses relating to computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3641/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.1,65,65,066/- incurred on acquiring the computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing these expenses by not appreciating the various judicial precedents ... well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.2,12,74,929/- incurred on expenses relating to computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. Motorola Solutions India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4789/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.1,65,65,066/- incurred on acquiring the computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing these expenses by not appreciating the various judicial precedents ... well as the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.2,12,74,929/- incurred on expenses relating to computer software and treating the same as capital expenditure. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Kony Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(2), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 4

Income-tax in Civil Appeal Nos.8733-8734 of 2018. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court expounded that consideration for the resale of the computer software through End User License Agreement (EULA)/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

also relevant. A person can be said to have acquired a copyright or the right to use the copyright in a computer software or database (as described by the Assessing Officer), where he is authorized to do all or any of the acts as per the definition 11 American Chemical

Gainsight Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 200/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 37(1)Section 438

Note no.43 related to “quantitative details”: “43. Quantitative Details : The company is primarily engaged in the development and maintenance of computer software. The production and sale of such software cannot be expressed in any generic unit. Hence, it is not possible to give the quantitative details of sales and certain

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

services (Product Engineering) and is also selling its branded products. Extraction from Page 533 of PB-II "Business overview Your company specializes in building computer software products. Your company's business is organized with a focus on the following three areas: Products (IP Business), Platforms (Solutions Integration) AND Services (Product

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 1Section 115JSection 14A

moto disallowance u/s 14A of I.T Act made in the computation of total income Particulars Employee Cost Auditor Remuneration Communication Computer Exp Computer Software Electricity Exp Office Expenses. Printing and Stationery Rent Miscellaneous expenses Total Expenses as per_P&LA/c

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14A

employee cost Communication 87,839,831 308,559 % of employee cost Computer Exp 6,449,154 22,654 % of employee cost Computer Software 41,966,229 147,417 % of employee cost Electricity Exp 11,105,034 39,009 % of employee cost Office Expenses. 61,238,243 215,114 % of employee

Niho Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

Arbitration award represents value of source code supplied by company to its associate enterprise and source code is nothing but part and parcel of computer software as defined in Sec 10A. (Pg 32) * AO disallowed the deduction without any corroborative evidence. (Pg 33) Conclusion: Decision of CIT(A),deleting ... return alongwith letter dated 23.08.2008 copy at (PB 26) treating the same as part and parcel of net profit derived from export of computer software and claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act. It goes without saying that the revised return of income stood accepted by Ld. AO and that

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

paid maintenance charges towards both the applications. The ld AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards maintenance of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself ... also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

paid maintenance charges towards both the applications. The ld AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards maintenance of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself ... also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

paid maintenance charges towards both the applications. The ld AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards maintenance of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself ... also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India

M/S. Shell Interational Petroleum Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

paid maintenance charges towards both the applications. The ld AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards maintenance of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself ... also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India

M/S Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

paid maintenance charges towards both the applications. The ld AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards maintenance of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself ... also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") entered between India

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Taramani Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2889/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

deleted the addition of ₹.6,09,41,666/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of restricting the depreciation to 25% on computer software treating it as intangibles as against 40% depreciation claimed by the assessee. 25. We note that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that ... Tribunal observed that New Appendix-1 as effective from AY 2006-07 prescribe higher rate of depreciation for computer software and therefore, confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeals of the Revenue. Based on the above decisions of the Tribunal

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Ltu 1 Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

deleted the addition of ₹.6,09,41,666/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of restricting the depreciation to 25% on computer software treating it as intangibles as against 40% depreciation claimed by the assessee. 25. We note that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that ... Tribunal observed that New Appendix-1 as effective from AY 2006-07 prescribe higher rate of depreciation for computer software and therefore, confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeals of the Revenue. Based on the above decisions of the Tribunal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

deleted the addition of ₹.6,09,41,666/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of restricting the depreciation to 25% on computer software treating it as intangibles as against 40% depreciation claimed by the assessee. 25. We note that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that ... Tribunal observed that New Appendix-1 as effective from AY 2006-07 prescribe higher rate of depreciation for computer software and therefore, confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeals of the Revenue. Based on the above decisions of the Tribunal