9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sums paid by the assessee by way of royalty to its foreign collaborators are deductible as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deductibility of Royalty Payments as Revenue Expenditure Facts: The assessee, a government company engaged in manufacturing precision tools, entered into two separate agreements with foreign collaborators for technical know-how and manufacturing rights. The agreements involved payments of royalties based on production and sales. The amounts in question were Rs. 1,01,282 and Rs. 97,357 for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed these amounts as capital payments, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed them as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, leading to the present reference. Arguments: - Assessee's Contention: The payments were for acquiring technical know-how and assistance necessary for manufacturing, which should be treated as revenue expenditure. The case was argued to be similar to the Supreme Court's decision in Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692. - Revenue's Contention: The payments were for acquiring an asset of an enduring nature, i.e., technical know-how and designs for new machinery, thus constituting capital expenditure. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal concluded that the payments were for acquiring a capital asset, as the technical know-how and designs became the property of the assessee and could be used even after the agreement's termination. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Ciba's case, noting that the assessee acquired new technical know-how for machinery not previously in its production range. Court's Analysis: 1. Legal Principles: - The Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34 established that expenditure for acquiring an enduring benefit is capital, while expenditure for running the business is revenue. - In Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718, the Supreme Court held that not all expenditures for enduring advantages are capital; the context and purpose matter. - Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692 emphasized that payments for technical know-how and assistance for running the business are revenue expenditure. 2. Application of Principles: - The agreements were for acquiring technical know-how and assistance for manufacturing specific machinery, not for acquiring a new business or extending an existing one. - The payments were linked to production and sales, indicating they were part of the profit-earning process. - The right to use the technical know-how even after the agreement's termination does not convert the expenditure into capital, as the knowledge and skills acquired are akin to a teacher imparting knowledge to a student. 3. Distinguishing Hylam's Case: - The decision in Hylam's case [1973] 87 ITR 310 was overruled as it incorrectly distinguished Ciba's case based on the duration of the agreement and the nature of the payments. - The court noted that the nature of the expenditure should be determined by its purpose and relation to the business, not merely by the duration of the agreement or the form of payment. Conclusion: The court held that the royalty payments were revenue in nature, as they were directly related to the manufacturing process and the profit-making activities of the assessee. The payments were for securing technical know-how and assistance necessary for running the business, not for acquiring a new asset or enduring benefit. Therefore, the sums paid by the assessee were deductible as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
|
