consistency priciple better to take after past practice OR Else Both Option Allowed.

Since the Asset stops to exists in the FY itself its better to Charge it off to Expenses

Dear Rubul, this question is goverened by PARA 40-47 and 63 of AS-26. Extensively , as indicated by these PARA: To underwrite the cost of R&D the undertaking must show the greater part of the accompanying: a. the specialized plausibility of finishing the immaterial resource( in ur case creation handle for new autos) with the goal that it will be accessible for utilize or deal; b. its goal to finish the immaterial resource and utilize or offer it; c. its capacity to utilize or offer the impalpable resource; d. how the impalpable resource will produce likely future financial advantages. In addition to other things, the venture ought to exhibit the presence of a business opportunity for the yield of the immaterial resource or the impalpable resource itself or, in the event that it is to be utilized inside, the handiness of the elusive resource; e. the accessibility of satisfactory specialized, money related and different assets to finish the advancement and to utilize or offer the impalpable resource; and f. its capacity to gauge the consumption owing to the elusive resource amid its advancement dependably. In a nutshell on the off chance that it can be exhibited that the fabricate fo new autos is technicaly,commercialy and fiscally practical the cost of autos utilized ought to be promoted alongside with different costs on R&D ,VIZ: Rent or devaluation of building utilized for R&D, pay rates of research staff and so on. It is irerlevant whether auto is pulverized with in one year, since it will be dealt with in the nature fo material utilized for R&D.(though i wud get a kick out of the chance to know more certainties on the way of devastation of the autos) Unless there is convincing confirmation generally and by fulfilling states of PARA - 63 of AS-26,There is a rebuttable assumption that the helpful existence of an immaterial resource won't surpass ten years from the date when the benefit is accessible for utilize. Despite the fact that by ur realities it appears techonology utilized for new autos will have life of 5 yeasrs it ought to be composed of more than 5 years , being shorter than most extreme allowed 10 years. Be that as it may, if the make OF new autos is not technically,commercialy or fiscally achievable , in such a case the cost of autos ought to be w/off to P&L as fizzled Research under PARA 40 of AS-26.

Much obliged MEMBERS. Specialy to CA. K Papneja for his important remarks.