Merely because expenditure has been incurred for material for duplication without acquisition of proprietary and when the expenditure is not of capital nature, the said Section would not be applicable.
In any case, the said provision is not applicable with effect from the 1st day of April, 1998. The view we have taken finds affirmation and support from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Denso India Limited (supra). It supports the case of the appellant as it has been held that depreciation claim in respect of intangible assets would arise only when it is first determined that the expenditure was capital in nature. Reference was made to CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 371 (Del) where broad principles have been culled out and some of the principles have been set out in seritum. Decision in CIT v. Sharda Motors Industrial Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 109 (Del) was also referred too. The question of law mentioned above is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue.