9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the royalty payments made by the assessee to Texmo Industries are capital expenditures or revenue expenditures deductible u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no capital asset of enduring nature was acquired by the assessee through the royalty payments and that nothing was conveyed by Texmo Industries except the use of the trademark and access to technical information. Summary: Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure (Capital or Revenue) The primary issue was whether the expenditures of Rs. 2,60,682, Rs. 2,83,655, and Rs. 4,23,291 for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1980-81, respectively, incurred by the assessee as royalty payments to Texmo Industries, Coimbatore, under the agreement dated January 1, 1977, are revenue expenditures deductible u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or capital expenditures not deductible thereunder. The Tribunal held that these expenditures are revenue expenditures on the grounds that no capital asset of enduring nature had been acquired by the assessee and that nothing was conveyed by Texmo Industries except the use of the trademark and access to technical information. Issue 2: Validity of Tribunal's Findings The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, which argued that the expenditures should be treated as capital expenditures. The Tribunal's decision was based on the agreement's terms, which allowed the use of the trademark "Texmo" and access to technical information for a period of five years, renewable thereafter. The Tribunal found that these payments were for the better conduct and improvement of the existing business and should be considered revenue expenditures. Legal Precedents and Analysis The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 377 (SC), which held that payments for technical know-how and other similar expenditures are revenue expenditures if they are for the better conduct and improvement of the existing business. The court emphasized that the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense is crucial and that not every advantage of enduring nature is a capital expenditure. The court also noted that the rapid advances in technology make it unrealistic to treat technical know-how as a capital asset with enduring benefit. Conclusion The court concluded that the expenditures incurred by the assessee were revenue expenditures deductible u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court reframed the questions into a single question and answered it in the affirmative, against the Revenue. The expenditures were deemed to have a direct nexus to the carrying on of the business and were part of the profit-making process, thus qualifying as revenue expenditures. No costs were awarded.
|
