Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. G.E. Capital Services Ltd.

Cit vs G.E. Capital Services Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 10, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/715717

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Head Note: INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . Business expenditure--Allowability Expenditure incurred on software needing frequent upgradation--Held: Where customised software is prepared, it is of an enduring nature but MS office is not a customised software which requires frequent upgradation. Hence, expenditure in question w...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Respondent

G.E. Capital Services Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)214CTR(Del)551; [2008]300ITR420(Delhi)

Excerpt

head note: income tax act, 1961 . business expenditure--allowability expenditure incurred on software needing frequent upgradation--held: where customised software is prepared, it is of an enduring nature but ms office is not a customised software which requires frequent upgradation. hence, expenditure in question was an allowable business expenditure. income tax act, 1961 section 37(1) - ordercm no. 8353 of 2007 (exemption)1. allowed, subject to all just exceptions. cm stands disposed of.it appeal no. 560 of 20072. the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench 'c in ita nos. 2038,2528 and 2529/delhi/2002 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98.3. the only question that has arisen in this case pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 is that expenditure incurred by the assessed on software was treated by the assessing officer as capital expenditure. the tribunal was of the view that due to technological changes and the need to upgrade the software on a regular basis it cannot be said that the software was of an enduring nature.4. we are informed that the software for which the expenditure was incurred was ms office, which is not a custom built software for the assessed and it is common knowledge that this software requires regular up gradation.5. we can understand that where customised software is prepared, then it could be of an enduring nature, but in this case ms office is not customised software and it cannot be said that the software does not require frequent up gradation.6. we are of the view that there is no error committed by the tribunal in taking the view that it did.

Full Judgment

ORDER

CM No. 8353 of 2007 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.

IT Appeal No. 560 of 2007

2. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C in ITA Nos. 2038,2528 and 2529/Delhi/2002 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98.

3. The only question that has arisen in this case pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 is that expenditure incurred by the assessed on software was treated by the assessing officer as capital expenditure. The Tribunal was of the view that due to technological changes and the need to upgrade the software on a regular basis it cannot be said that the software was of an enduring nature.

4. We are informed that the software for which the expenditure was incurred was MS Office, which is not a custom built software for the assessed and it is common knowledge that this software requires regular up gradation.

5. We can understand that where customised software is prepared, then it could be of an enduring nature, but in this case MS Office is not customised software and it cannot be said that the software does not require frequent up gradation.

6. We are of the view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in taking the view that it did.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial