2009 (11) TMI 935 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of royalty/technical know-how fee as capital or revenue expenditure.
2. Apportionment of royalty payment between capital and revenue expenditure.

Summary:

Issue 1: Treatment of Royalty/Technical Know-How Fee

The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing electrical products, declared a loss of Rs. 3,12,57,184/- for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The AO capitalized Rs. 2,06,00,010/- paid to M/s. Simelectro France as royalty, treating it as capital expenditure, and allowed 25% depreciation. The AO relied on precedents such as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jacobs (P) Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Polyformation (P) Ltd., and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coal Shipments P. Ltd. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee derived enduring benefits from the payment to M/s. Simelectro France.

Issue 2: Apportionment of Royalty Payment

The CIT(A) differentiated the payments, treating Rs. 20,60,010/- to M/s. Simelectro France as capital expenditure and Rs. 17,45,198/- to M/s. SPG Holding GMPH as a receivable amount, not as capital or revenue expenditure. The Tribunal, however, directed the AO to capitalize only 25% of the Rs. 20,60,010/- payment to M/s. Simelectro France, treating 75% as revenue expenditure, aligning with the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd., approved by the Supreme Court. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the entire amount should be capitalized due to the enduring benefits derived from the agreement with M/s. Simelectro France.

The Tribunal's decision was supported by the respondent, who cited various case laws suggesting that the entire expenditure could be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal had referred to the agreement clauses and concluded that the facts were similar to Southern Switch Gear Ltd., thus treating 25% as capital and 75% as revenue expenditure.

The Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Switch Gear Ltd. held that the benefit secured by the assessee was of an enduring nature, thus treating the technical fee as capital expenditure. However, it apportioned 25% as capital and 75% as revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal by the assessee, who sought to treat the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure.

In the present case, the Tribunal did not provide a rationale for apportioning 25% as capital expenditure. The High Court noted that the AO had treated the entire expenditure as capital expenditure, and the Tribunal should have given a rationale for its apportionment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for specific discussion on this aspect. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on December 21, 2009.