JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A passed in ITA No. 2631/AHD/2004 dated 27.02.2009 for AY 2001-01, by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the assessee, the Revenue has preferred the Tax Appeal to consider the following question of law: "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- made on account of disallowance of claim on bad debt/trading loss? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee for treating software expenses of Rs. 26,00,000/- as revenue expenditure?" 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: "2.1. The assessee claimed Rs. 1,59,62,518/- as bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) and subsequently claimed it as a loss incidental to the business allowable under Section 28 of the Act. The assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs. 26 lakhs towards software expenses as revenue expenditure, the AO while framing the original assessment did not allow the deduction of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- which was claimed as business loss/bad debt. The AO did not allow the depreciation claim towards software expenses as revenue expenditure. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned AO, making addition of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- made on account of disallowance of claim of bad debt/trading loss and also treating the software expenses of Rs. 26 lakhs as capital expenditure, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). That the learned CIT(A) allowed the said appeal preferred by the assessee and directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- made on account of disallowance of claim of bad debt/trading loss as well as allowed the claim of the assessee treating the software expenses of Rs. 26 lakhs as revenue expenditure. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the learned ITAT. By impugned judgment and order, the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue, which has given rise to the present appeal with the aforesaid question of law." 3. We have heard Ms. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the learned ITAT. By impugned judgment and order, the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue, which has given rise to the present appeal with the aforesaid question of law." 3. We have heard Ms. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri Monaal Davawala, learned advocate for the assessee. 4. Now, so far as Question No. A i.e. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- made on account of disallowance of claim on bad debt/trading loss is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that as such the assessee himself written off the aforesaid amount as bad debt/trading loss. The said amount is irrecoverable during the year and the loss is arising during the year under consideration. In that view of the matter and aforesaid undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in treating the same and/or considering the same as trading loss. When the assessee itself in his books of account shown and written of said amount, the same is rightly considered as bad debt/trading loss. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,62,518/- made on account of disallowance of claim on bad debt/treating loss. Therefore, the said question is held against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Now, so far as Question No. B i.e. whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee for treating software expenses of Rs. 26,00,000/- as revenue expenditure is concerned, the said question is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. N.J. India Invest Pvt. Ltd. rendered Tax Appeal No. 186 of 2013. By the said decision, the similar question has been answered by the Division Bench and against the revenue. By the said decision, the similar question has been answered by the Division Bench and against the revenue. We have gone through the facts in Tax Appeal No. 186 of 2013 and also the facts of the case on hand. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has specifically held that expenditure of software stock and maintenance charges is required to be treated and/or considered as revenue expenditure. Under the circumstances, applying the decision of the Division Bench in the case of N.J. India Invest Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, even Question No. B is also answered against the revenue and . 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Both the questions are answered and against the revenue. .