1981 (6) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue.
2. Analysis of the foreign collaboration agreement.
3. Determination of the nature of recurring payments under the agreement.
4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision.
5. Consideration of relevant case law and statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Expenditure as Capital or Revenue:
The primary issue in these tax cases is whether the expenditure incurred under a foreign collaboration agreement is capital or revenue in nature. The court noted that there are no separate tests under income-tax law for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure arising from a foreign collaboration agreement. Instead, the real character of the expenditure must be examined based on the terms of the agreement.

2. Analysis of the Foreign Collaboration Agreement:
The collaboration agreement between the assessee and the Dutch company, Wavin, involved the production of P.V.C. pipes. Wavin agreed to supply plant and machinery, work patents, and provide technical know-how and research results without any stated consideration, except for the initial setup of the factory for which equity shares were allotted. A significant clause required the Indian company to make recurring payments to Wavin for ten years, measured by the sales turnover of P.V.C. pipes, as a contribution towards Wavin's research costs.

3. Determination of the Nature of Recurring Payments under the Agreement:
The recurring payments under clause 10 of the agreement were intended to cover the costs of research carried out by Wavin in the Netherlands. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed 1/4th of these payments, considering them as capital expenditure, arguing that they provided an enduring benefit to the assessee's trade. However, the Tribunal held that the entire payment should be regarded as revenue expenditure, as it was related to the day-to-day production in the assessee's factory.

4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the materials showing that the research results provided by Wavin were directly related to the production processes in the assessee's factory. The Tribunal concluded that the payments were for the day-to-day running of the factory and not for acquiring any capital asset. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the contribution was specifically for research costs and not for any capital expenditure.

5. Consideration of Relevant Case Law and Statutory Provisions:
The court referred to several cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd., which held that payments for technical know-how and research contributions should be treated as revenue expenditure. The court also discussed the relevance of sections 35 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concluding that the payments made by the assessee were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and did not constitute capital expenditure.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the entire contribution towards research and development costs paid by the assessee to the foreign collaborator should be regarded as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision to delete the ITO's disallowance of 1/4th of the amount as capital expenditure was upheld. The Department was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.