2015 (6) TMI 999 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of royalty - revenue v/s capital expenditure - Held that - From this agreement the following facts emerge - (i) The royalty is paid @ 5% on domestic sales and 8% on export sales. (ii) Thus the royalty payment is directly linked to revenue. (iii) The royalty payment is for a period of seven years extendable upto 10 years. Thus from the above it is apparent that the royalty payment is for definite period of time and the payment of royalty is directly linked to revenue receipts. In these circumstances the entire payment made for royalty has to be treated as revenue expenditure and no element of such royalty payment can be treated as capital expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 30,41,829/- incurred towards running royalty.
2. Treatment of 25% of the running royalty as capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,70,344/- and allowing depreciation thereon.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of the Entire Amount of Rs. 30,41,829/- Towards Running Royalty:

The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing electrical fuel pumps, filed a return of income admitting an income of Rs. 2,77,85,819/-. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the royalty payments to Hyundai Industries Co. Ltd., Korea. The A.O. reasoned that the technical knowledge gained by the assessee provided an enduring benefit for manufacturing and industrial processes, initially for seven years, extendable indefinitely. The agreement included provisions for technical assistance, exclusive manufacturing and selling rights, and royalty payments based on sales percentages. The A.O. concluded that the royalty payments constituted both capital and revenue expenses, disallowing Rs. 5,70,344/- as capital expenditure.

2. Treatment of 25% of Running Royalty as Capital Expenditure:

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] upheld the A.O.'s decision, categorizing the royalty as an annual payment calculated at a fixed percentage of sales. The CIT (A) referenced the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Southern Switch Gear Ltd Vs. CIT, which established a 3:1 ratio for treating royalty expenses as revenue and capital expenditures. The CIT (A) noted that the facts of the assessee's case were identical to the Southern Switch Gear case, where the High Court and Supreme Court held that payments providing enduring benefits should be treated as capital expenses.

Appellate Tribunal's Decision:

The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the royalty payments should be treated entirely as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reviewed the agreement and noted that the royalty was linked directly to revenue, paid at 5% on domestic sales and 8% on export sales, for a definite period of seven years, extendable to ten years. The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from the Southern Switch Gear case, where the payment was a lump sum for technical aid, noting that the royalty in the current case was based on sales and for a limited period.

The Tribunal concluded that the entire royalty payment should be treated as revenue expenditure, directing the A.O. to allow the deduction of Rs. 30,41,829/-. Thus, both grounds raised by the assessee were decided in its favor.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the entire royalty payment of Rs. 30,41,829/- was directed to be treated as revenue expenditure. The order was pronounced on 2nd June 2015 at Chennai.