By C. N. Vaze, Shailesh Kamdar, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Bhadresh Doshi, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 40(a)(i) – Provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted to the claim of depreciation and licence fee for using computer software which falls under Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi)
Facts:
During the relevant assessment year, the assessee made payments to a foreign company for acquiring its trade name. The amount so paid was capitalised and depreciation was claimed in respect of it. The Assessing Officer held that the payment made by the assessee for acquisition of trademarks though capitalised by the assessee company in the books of account, the said payment attracted provisions of section 195. Since, assessee failed to deduct tax at source while making said payment, it was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i).
Held:
There is a difference between the expenditure and other kind of deduction. The other kind of deduction which includes any loss incidental to carrying on the business, bad debts etc., which are deductible items itself not because an expenditure was laid out and consequentially any sum has gone out; on the contrary the expenditure results a certain sums payable and goes out of the business of the assessee. The sum, as contemplated u/s. 40(a)(i) is the outgoing amount and therefore, necessarily refers to the outgoing expenditure. Depreciation is a statutory deduction and after the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 32, it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of depreciation on the eligible asset irrespective of any claim made by the assessee. Therefore, depreciation is a mandatory deduction on the asset which is wholly or partly owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession which means the depreciation is a deduction for an asset owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business and not for incurring of any expenditure. The deduction u/s. 32 is not in respect of the amount paid or payable which is subjected to TDS; and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted on such deduction.
Facts:
The assessee made payment to a group company towards software license fees. The Assessing Officer opined that the payment made by the assessee to the group company was royalty and thereby attracting the provisions of section 195 failure of which attracted the provisions of section 40(a)(i). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount.
Held:
It is clear from the Clause A of Explanation to section 40(a)(i), the meaning of the royalty for the purpose of section 40 has to be taken as given in the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). It is also clear from the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) that the payment for transfer of any right to use computer software does not fall within the meaning of royalty. Rather, the payment for transfer of right for use or right to use of computer software has been defined as royalty under Explanation 4. When the royalty for transfer of right to use of computer software does not fall under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi); but the same falls under Explanation 4 to section 9(1) (vi), then in view of the Explanation to section 40(a) (i), the said amount cannot be disallowed under the provisions of section 40(a)(i).
