9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 886 - AT - Income TaxRoyalty payment revenue or capital lump sum payment - Held that - assessee has acquired only a licence to use the brand name and trademarks of the foreign collaborator. A mere lience to use the other party s patent and knowledge have been considered as permissible revenue expenditure by the Apex Court in the I.A.E.C (Pumps) case 232 ITR 316 . However, at the same time, a portion of such expenses would also be in the nature of a capital expenditure to the extent that such expenses were to protect the advantage of using the foreign collaborator s brand name and trademarks. - 25% held as capital in nature and 75% held as revenue in nature. Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - held that - Assessing Officer directed to not to apply Rule 8D in the present case since the assessment year under appeal is 2005-06 and Rule 8D is applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09 matter remanded Deduction under section 43B in respect of employees contribution to Provident Fund - Held that - Omission of second proviso to section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2003 operated retrospectively from 01.04.1988 and not prospectively from 01.04.2004 - Assessing Officer directed to verify as to whether this contribution paid by the assessee before the due date for filing of return - If the payments were made before the due date for filing of return, such contributions are to be allowed as deduction - issue is allowed for statistical purpose
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of royalty payment as capital or revenue expenditure. 2. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 3. Deduction under section 43B for employees' contribution to Provident Fund. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Royalty Payment as Capital or Revenue Expenditure: The first ground of appeal by the assessee was against the CIT(A)'s decision to classify 25% of the royalty payment as capital expenditure. The Department appealed against the classification of 75% of the royalty payment as revenue expenditure. The assessee, a public limited company, paid a lump sum royalty of Rs. 4,77,90,000/- to Fenner, U.K. for the use of the trade mark and name "FENNER." The Assessing Officer treated this payment as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation at 25% on the royalty, treating it as an intangible asset. The CIT(A) later held that 25% of the royalty was capital expenditure and 75% was revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that the payment was for the use of the trademark for a limited period and did not result in the acquisition of any asset, thus should be considered as revenue expenditure. The Department contended that the payment resulted in the acquisition of an asset with enduring benefits, thus capital in nature. The Tribunal, after reviewing the agreement and relevant case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. and Southern Switchgears Ltd., upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal concluded that 25% of the royalty payment was for acquiring a capital asset, while 75% was for the mere use of the trademark, thus revenue expenditure. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The next issue was the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which held that Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09. For years prior, the Assessing Officer must determine the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income using a reasonable basis. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the expenses attributable to earning exempt income reasonably, without applying Rule 8D, since the assessment year under appeal was 2005-06. 3. Deduction under Section 43B for Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund: The Department's appeal included the issue of allowing deduction under section 43B for employees' contribution to Provident Fund. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., which held that the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 operated retrospectively from 01.04.1988. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the contributions were paid before the due date for filing the return. If so, the contributions should be allowed as a deduction. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and the Department's appeals. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s classification of the royalty payment, directed a reasonable estimation of expenses for disallowance under section 14A, and instructed the Assessing Officer to verify the timing of Provident Fund contributions for deduction under section 43B.
|
