Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“E” Bench, Mumbai
Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)
I.T.A. No. 805/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12)
I.T.A. No. 4711/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)
I.T.A. No. 4712/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
I.T.A. No. 4713/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15)

ACIT-3(1)(2)/DCIT-
14(1)(2)
Room No. 607
6th Floor
Aayakar Bhavan
M.K. Road
Mumbai-40 020.

(Appellant)

vs

M/s. Experian Credit Information
Company Pvt. Ltd.
201, 2nd Floor, Plantia
C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra-East
Mumbai-400 051.
PAN : AABCE6822A

(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved
Department by Shri Manpreet Duggal
Date of Hearing 28.05.2021
Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2021

O R D E R

These are appeals by the Revenue against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] for aforesaid assessment years. Since issues are common and connected they are being disposed of by this common order.

2.The AO noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate of registration, issued by the RBI on 17/2/2010 permitting it to commence the business of providing credit information. It was therefore imperative for the assessee to commence its business activity latest by 16/8/2010 i.e is within 6 months of the impugned RBI letter failing which its certificate of registration would lapse unless otherwise approved by the RBI. The Assessing Officer opined that it is providing credit information and the predecided electronic formats, the company needs to have a suitable database of the credit history/track records.

3.We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the issue in dispute here is whether the assessee has commenced the business on the date claimed or not. of the individuals to be able to provide credit reports thereon and the required software, to be able to store, process the data that are generated and desired reports.

4.We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the issue here is whether the assessee’s claim of technology recharge cost is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The order of the Assessing Officer is again thoroughly based upon surmises and conjecture with no cogent material whatsoever.

5.Accordingly all these appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 2.8.2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement.