9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 543 - AT - Income TaxAddition for expenditure incurred earning dividend income u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In terms of decision of in Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income, the AO is required to verify the correctness of such claim but in the instant case the AO was handicapped, because of failure of the assessee to furnish relevant details/particulars and accounts while making the disallowance in terms of provisions of sec. 14A. - set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the issue, afresh - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Payment of royalty - Revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As the assessee was granted a licence for using the know-how to be applied in the manufacturing process. The assessee was required to pay royalty for using such know-how. However, the assessee never became the owner of such know-how but was merely granted a licence to use the same in manufacturing process. The know-how at all the time remains the property of the licensor. At the end of the licence period the assessee was to forthwith return all the plates and drawings, data material and other documents supplied by the licensor to it. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. 69 ITR 692 of India Ltd. 1967 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT the payment is to be considered as revenue expenditure and no part thereof can be considered as capital expenditure - in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for earning dividend income. 2. Deletion of addition on account of royalty payments. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 14A for Earning Dividend Income Facts and Background: For the assessment years (AY) 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed amounts of Rs.11,44,183/- and Rs.11,85,916/- respectively under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The AO observed that the assessee earned significant dividend income which was exempt from tax and concluded that indirect expenditure was involved in earning this income. CIT(A) Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the disallowance, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. ITO and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. The CIT(A) emphasized that Rule 8D has no retrospective applicability and that the AO failed to provide a categorical finding regarding the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. Appellate Tribunal Findings: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not analyze the nature of the expenditure or the relevant details of expenditure and accounts. The Tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that Rule 8D applies prospectively from AY 2008-09 and that the AO must determine the quantum of disallowable expenditure by a reasonable method. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to verify the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for reconsideration, directing the AO to pass a speaking order after examining all relevant details and accounts. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Royalty Payments Facts and Background: The AO disallowed royalty payments of Rs.16,17,267/- for AY 2007-08 and Rs.84,81,307/- for AY 2008-09, treating them as capital expenditure. The AO allowed depreciation on these amounts. The assessee argued that the royalty payments were revenue in nature, as they were made for the right to use technical know-how for a limited period without transferring ownership rights. CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) allowed the claim, following the ITAT's decisions in the assessee's own case for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, where similar disallowances were deleted. The CIT(A) concluded that the royalty payments were revenue in nature, as the assessee was merely granted a license to use the know-how without acquiring ownership rights. Appellate Tribunal Findings: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the facts and circumstances in relation to the royalty payments were similar to those in the preceding years. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT's decisions in the assessee's case for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, where the disallowance was deleted. The Tribunal found no material controverting the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance under section 14A for reconsideration by the AO, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the royalty payments.
|
