9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Determination of whether royalty payment constitutes capital or revenue expenditure and entitlement to depreciation and development rebate.
Summary: The case involved the assessment of royalty payment made by an assessee company for the production of urea formaldehyde resin under a collaboration agreement. The company claimed deduction of the royalty paid as revenue expenditure, but the Income-tax Officer deemed it to be of a capital nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, while the Tribunal held that part of the royalty payment was capital and the rest was revenue expenditure. The Tribunal decided that the initial royalty payment was capital in nature, to be added to the cost of machinery and plant, allowing the assessee depreciation and development rebate. In determining the nature of the royalty payment, the court referred to various legal precedents. The Supreme Court emphasized that expenditure made for acquiring an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business is of a capital nature, while expenses for running the business to produce profits are revenue expenditure. The court also cited cases where payments for technical know-how were considered capital expenditure, adding to the cost of plant and machinery. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the capital nature of the royalty payment, denying its deduction as revenue expenditure. However, the assessee was entitled to depreciation and development rebate on the capital expenditure. The court did not address the nature of future royalty payments, as it was not relevant to the current assessment proceedings. The judgment was delivered by Judge P. C. Balakrishna Menon, with the first part of question No. 1 answered in favor of the Revenue and the second part not addressed. Question No. 2 was answered in favor of the assessee, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
|
