9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of technical aid fees. 2. Disallowance of 1/4th of the royalty paid. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of Technical Aid Fees The assessee-company entered into a collaboration agreement with a foreign company on December 12, 1963, for technical aid and information in manufacturing switchgear and transformers. The assessee claimed the payment made to the foreign company as revenue expenditure for the year 1966-67. The ITO disallowed part of this payment, considering it an enduring benefit and thus capital expenditure. The AAC, upon appeal, concluded that the technical aid fees had an element of capital expenditure and restricted the disallowance to 1/4th of the gross payment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the case Transformer & Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 352, where similar agreements were deemed to confer an enduring advantage, thus justifying the disallowance of 1/4th of the technical aid fees as capital expenditure. Issue 2: Disallowance of 1/4th of the Royalty Paid The ITO, AAC, and Tribunal all concurred that 25% of the royalty paid should be disallowed. The royalty was paid for the exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling products, which was considered an enduring benefit. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 25% of the royalty, treating it as partly capital expenditure. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The court analyzed the collaboration agreement clauses and concluded that the technical knowledge obtained provided an enduring advantage. The court referenced previous cases, including Transformer & Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 352, Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 665, and M. R. Electronic Components Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 305, which supported the view that such technical fees and royalties confer enduring benefits and should be partly disallowed as capital expenditure. The court held that 25% of the technical aid fees and royalty payments were rightfully disallowed as capital expenditure. The first question was answered partly in favor of the Revenue and partly in favor of the assessee, while the second question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Revenue, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
|
