2015 (4) TMI 332 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of technical fee - whether is capital expenditure? - Held that - Considering the material on record, especially the terms of the technical know-how agreement such as Article 14.3, 17, 17.1, 18, 18.2 and 22. The exercise of determining whether, regardless of nomenclature, any expenditure is in the revenue or the capital stream cannot be stereo typed into any formula. As noticed in Alembic Chemicals Work Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1989 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) The exercise, therefore, is necessarily fact dependant. In the present case, based upon the terms and conditions which the parties agreed upon, the ITAT held that the payment of USD 3 lakhs could not be treated as capital expenditure. This Court finds no infirmity with that finding or any reason to interfere with the Tribunal s decision. No substantial question of law arises under Section - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the sum added by the Assessing Officer on account of technical fee is capital expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's order adding a sum on account of technical fee as capital expenditure. The assessee reported business income for AY 2005-06 and relied on a technological collaboration agreement granting rights to use technology for licensed products. The AO considered this a capital expenditure, disallowing the amount, but the CIT (Appeals) disagreed, holding it as revenue expenditure.

2. The ITAT analyzed the technical know-how agreement terms and past decisions, concluding that the assessee only had access to technical knowledge, not an absolute transfer. The agreement facilitated technical improvements but did not form part of the revenue earning apparatus. Referring to previous court decisions, the ITAT held that expenditure for access to technical knowledge is typically treated as revenue expenditure, not capital.

3. The High Court examined the agreement terms and relevant legal principles, emphasizing that the distinction between revenue and capital expenditure is fact-dependent. Citing a previous case, the Court noted the difficulty in formulating a general rule. Based on the agreed terms, the Court upheld the ITAT's decision that the payment could not be treated as capital expenditure, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision, emphasizing the legal principles and factual considerations that guided the outcome.