9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of annual fee under clause 9 of the collaboration agreement was in the nature of revenue expenditure and should be allowed under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the additional liability of Rs. 15,440 arising from the devaluation of the rupee should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1967-68. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Annual Fee Payment under Collaboration Agreement: The primary issue revolves around whether the annual payments made by the assessee-company to the foreign company under clause 9 of the collaboration agreement should be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision that these know-how payments are admissible deductions. This view was supported by a subsequent decision in CIT v. Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd., where it was established that the services rendered under clause 9 were related to the day-to-day business operations and did not result in the acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. Thus, these payments were considered revenue expenditure. The High Court agreed with this view and affirmed that the annual payments under clause 9 are deductible under section 37. 2. Additional Liability Due to Devaluation: The second issue pertains to the additional liability of Rs. 15,440 that arose due to the devaluation of the rupee on June 6, 1966. The Tribunal had two reasons for disallowing this deduction: first, it considered the expenditure as capital expenditure or capital loss; second, since the annual payments were already allowed as deductions based on accrued liability, no further deduction could be allowed for the same liability in the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee argued that the enhanced liability due to devaluation should retain the same character as the original liability, i.e., revenue expenditure. The High Court referred to several precedents, including CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. and CIT v. Universal Radiators, which supported the principle that additional liability arising from devaluation should retain the same character as the original liability. The High Court concluded that the enhanced liability should be treated as revenue expenditure. However, the High Court also considered whether the enhanced liability could be claimed as a deduction for the assessment year 1967-68. Since the assessee had already claimed deductions based on accrued liability in earlier years, the High Court agreed with the Revenue's argument that no further deduction could be claimed for the same liability in subsequent years. The High Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED, which emphasized that a right or liability that accrued earlier cannot be treated as a new liability in a subsequent year merely because its quantum was modified by external factors like devaluation. Therefore, the High Court held that although the additional liability of Rs. 15,440 is a revenue expenditure, it cannot be allowed as a deduction for the assessment year 1967-68 since it does not represent a liability that arose or accrued in that year. The second question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that: 1. The annual payments under clause 9 of the collaboration agreement are revenue expenditure and deductible under section 37. 2. The additional liability due to devaluation, although a revenue expenditure, cannot be claimed as a deduction for the assessment year 1967-68 since it is not a liability that arose or accrued in that year.
|
