2020 (1) TMI 1608 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of expenditure - Revenue share of licence fees - Whether revenue expenditure allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT - Question No. (i) is covered against the Revenue passed by this Court in 2016 (4) TMI 1410 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT involving this very assessee. Without recording separate reasons, therefore, this question is not considered. Disallowance of interest expenditure towards interest free loan to the subsidiary - HELD THAT - Question No. (ii) is covered by the virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd 2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT . Hence, this question is also not entertained. No substantial question of law in this Appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of substantial question of law figure.
2. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Interpretation of revenue share of license fees as revenue expenditure.
4. Disallowance of interest expenditure towards interest-free loan to subsidiary.

Analysis:
1. The High Court allowed the amendment of the figure in the substantial question of law and dispensed with re-verification. The Appellant, the Revenue, contested the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27 May 2016 in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4445/Mum/2013 and 4418/Mum/2013 for Assessment Year 2007-2008.

2. Two substantial questions of law were framed for this appeal. The first question pertained to whether the revenue share of license fees amounting to Rs.2,77,77,90,896 was a deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second question related to the addition made due to the disallowance of interest expenditure on an interest-free loan to a subsidiary.

3. Referring to the Respondent's own case for the Assessment Year 2006-07, the Court noted that a similar issue was raised regarding the revenue share of license fees and the disallowance of interest expenditure. The Court cited previous judgments that had ruled against the Revenue on these matters, indicating that the questions were already addressed and decided in previous cases, leading to the dismissal of these questions in the current appeal.

4. Despite the initial admission of the appeal on a different legal question, the Court found that the issues raised in the appeal had already been settled in previous judgments against the Revenue. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law remaining in the appeal and disposed of the case accordingly.