9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1157 - AT - Income TaxPayment for use of technical knowhow and trademark - nature of expenditure - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Held that - Since the Assessing Officer has followed the orders for assessment year 2008-09 while treating the royalty expenditure as capital in nature and since the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the consistent decision of the Tribunal in assesse s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the ld. DR, we hold that the payment of royalty by the assessee to its AE GKN Driveline International GMBH, Germany and logo fee paid to the AE GKN holding Plc. as revenue in nature. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed Provision for warranty claim - allowable expenditure - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case as well as the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) we hold that the provision for warranty claim is an allowable expenditure. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Corporate Tax - Royalty and Logo Fee 2. Corporate Tax - Provision for Warranty Claims 3. Disallowance under Section 14A 4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) 5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Corporate Tax - Royalty and Logo Fee: The primary issue was whether the royalty and logo fee payments made by the assessee to its Associate Enterprises should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that these payments were revenue in nature, relying on past judgments in its favor, including decisions by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these payments as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at 25%. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the AO to follow the High Court's decision, which had dismissed the department's appeal and treated such payments as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction, referencing its own decisions in the assessee's favor for previous assessment years (2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10) and concluded that the royalty and logo fee payments were indeed revenue in nature. 2. Corporate Tax - Provision for Warranty Claims: The assessee claimed a deduction for provision for warranty claims, which the AO disallowed, treating it as a contingent liability. The DRP directed the AO to verify if the provision was based on scientific principles and if so, to allow the claim. The Tribunal referred to its own decisions in the assessee's favor for earlier years and the Supreme Court's judgment in Rotork Controls (I) Private Limited vs. CIT, which established that warranty provisions, if based on past trends and scientific estimation, are allowable under Section 37. The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty claims was an allowable expenditure, thus ruling in favor of the assessee. 3. Disallowance under Section 14A: The assessee did not press the ground related to disallowance under Section 14A due to the smallness of the amount involved. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed. 4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The ground related to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed as premature at this stage. 5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The ground concerning the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was dismissed as it was consequential in nature. Separate Judgments: There were no separate judgments delivered by different judges in this case. The order was pronounced collectively. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee regarding the treatment of royalty and logo fee payments and the provision for warranty claims, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The issues related to disallowance under Section 14A, initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), and levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C were dismissed. The final order was pronounced on 20th September 2017.
|
