9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deductibility of impugned payment of Rs. 53,000 as revenue expenditure. 2. Deductibility of royalty payment, remuneration, and travelling expenses as revenue expenditure. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the deductibility of certain expenses incurred by the assessee company during the assessment year 1962-63. The expenses in question included a lump sum payment for technical fee, royalty payment, travelling expenses for German technicians, and remuneration to the technicians. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, stating that the expenses were incurred for an asset of enduring benefit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disallowed the lump sum payment but allowed the other expenses. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal regarding the payment of Rs. 53,000, finding that it was laid out wholly and exclusively for the business purposes and did not result in acquiring an enduring asset or advantage. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the assessee did not acquire any enduring asset under the agreement. However, it was noted that the Tribunal failed to find or state relevant facts concerning Article 3 of the agreement, which dealt with technical "know-how." The High Court highlighted the importance of determining whether the assessee could utilize the technical know-how without the specified advice and assistance under Article 3 to classify the expenditure as revenue or capital. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to establish these facts before making a conclusive decision on the nature of the expenditure. Given the Tribunal's failure to decide the crucial issues relating to Article 3, the Court directed the Tribunal to take additional evidence on those issues following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The parties were granted the opportunity to present their arguments, and the Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the appeal accordingly. The judgment was delivered unanimously by Judges R. N. Pyne and S. C. Deb, with no order as to costs.
|
