9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 426 - AT - Income TaxExpenditure incurred towards technical know-how - CIT(A) treating 75% of the expenditure incurred as revenue in nature and balance 25% is treated as capital in nature and entitled for depreciation - Held that - The expenditure incurred by the assessee towards royalty to be considered as a revenue expenditure to be allowed as a revenue expenditure subject to 2% of the sales value and accordingly, this ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8(2)(ii) - main contention of the A.R is expenditure incurred on earning exempted income by the assessee towards financials and interest charges includes interest and leased vehicles and bank charges and it does not pertain to earning of the exempted income - Held that - In our opinion, there is a merit in the argument of the ld.A.R. Accordingly, if the assessee is able to prove that this expenditure are not relating to the earning of exempted income, this cannot be included in A in the Formula prescribed in Rule -8D(2)(ii) of Rules. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration.
Issues:
1. Treatment of expenditure towards technical know-how as revenue and capital in nature. 2. Disallowance under section 14A r.w.Rule 8(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Issue 1: Treatment of Expenditure towards Technical Know-How The primary issue in this case pertains to the treatment of expenditure incurred towards technical know-how by the Assessee. The Assessee contended that 75% of the expenditure should be treated as revenue in nature, while the remaining 25% should be considered as capital in nature entitled for depreciation. The dispute arose from the disagreement between the Assessee and the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the nature of the payment of royalty for technical know-how. The AO argued that the expenditure should be treated as capital in nature, allowing for depreciation, based on the enduring benefits the technical knowledge would bring to the Assessee. However, the Assessee maintained that the payment was revenue in nature, citing agreements and past tribunal decisions in their favor. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) upheld the Assessee's position, following a previous decision by the ITAT in the Assessee's own case. The ITAT, in its analysis, considered various clauses of the agreements and legal precedents to conclude that the expenditure towards technical know-how should be treated as revenue expenditure. Ultimately, the ITAT decided in favor of the Assessee, allowing the expenditure as revenue subject to certain conditions. Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.Rule 8(2)(ii) The second issue concerns the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Assessee had disallowed a specific amount under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in their statement of income. However, the AO invoked Rule 8D and made additional disallowances, leading to a disagreement between the Assessee and the tax authorities. The Assessee argued that the disallowance made under Rule 8D(ii) was invalid as the AO did not establish the specific expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Assessee further contended that no borrowings were utilized for investments, thus challenging the basis of the disallowance. The CIT(A) supported the AO's decision, emphasizing the need for satisfaction regarding the incurring of expenditures related to exempt income. However, the ITAT, after considering the arguments presented, found merit in the Assessee's contention that certain expenditures were not linked to earning exempted income. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, partially allowing the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the judgment by the ITAT Chennai addressed the issues of treating expenditure towards technical know-how and the disallowance under section 14A r.w.Rule 8(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The detailed analysis provided insights into the legal interpretations, agreements, and precedents that influenced the final decisions in favor of the Assessee on both issues.
|
