2018 (5) TMI 1875 - HC - Income Tax

Characterization of expenses - Payment of royalty and lump sum fee - capital or revenue expenditure - assessee contends that for A.Y. 2010-2011 similar payments were held to be revenue in nature relying on HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD 2017 (6) TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - The discussion of the lower appellate authority i.e. the CIT(A) and the ITAT would disclose that they went by the previous assessment year s decisions for A.Y. 2003-2004. The assessee entered into a new agreement in 2005. In these given circumstances, the omission by the lower appellate authorities is erroneous. The issue is therefore remitted for reconsideration by the ITAT which shall proceed to decide the question whether the payments made towards model fee/running royalty characterised lump sum payment, by the ITAT in the impugned order fall in the revenue or capital stream. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Parties shall appear before the ITAT on 21st May, 2018.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of agreement for royalty and lump sum fee, categorization of payments as capital or revenue expenditure, reliance on previous judgments, consideration of lower appellate authorities' decisions, remittance for reconsideration by ITAT.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the Revenue's grievance regarding the categorization of payments made by the assessee for royalty and lump sum fee under the agreement. The Court noted that the ITAT's analysis lacked appropriateness, leading to a conclusion that the payments fell into the capital stream. The assessee, in response, relied on a previous Supreme Court judgment for multiple Assessment Years, highlighting the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. The Court rejected the assessee's contention that the expenditure was revenue, but also acknowledged the reasoning for certain payments made. Additionally, for the subsequent Assessment Year, similar payments were deemed revenue in nature, indicating inconsistency in treatment.

The discussion revealed that the lower appellate authorities, namely the CIT(A) and the ITAT, based their decisions on previous assessment years, specifically A.Y. 2003-2004, despite the assessee entering into a new agreement in 2005. The High Court deemed this omission by the lower authorities as erroneous and remitted the issue for reconsideration by the ITAT. The ITAT was instructed to determine whether the payments towards model fee/running royalty, characterized as lump sum payment, should be classified under the revenue or capital stream, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, directing the parties to appear before the ITAT for further proceedings on the specified date. The judgment underscored the importance of a detailed analysis of payments under the agreement to ascertain their proper categorization as either revenue or capital expenditure, ensuring consistency and accuracy in tax assessments.