9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 15,000 paid to Smt. Dinaben Khorsedji should be allowed as revenue expenditure or under Section 35A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation allowance on the expenditure incurred by virtue of the agreement with Smt. Dinaben Khorsedji. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revenue Expenditure or Section 35A Allowance: The first issue pertains to whether the Rs. 15,000 paid to Smt. Dinaben Khorsedji should be treated as revenue expenditure or under Section 35A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal initially disallowed the amount as revenue expenditure, classifying it as capital expenditure. The AAC supported this by noting that the payment was for the purchase and utilization of technical know-how and was not dependent on the return on the use of capital know-how. Consequently, the AAC confirmed the disallowance of the Rs. 15,000 as revenue expenditure and also denied any claim under Section 35A, as no capital asset had been brought into existence. 2. Entitlement to Depreciation Allowance: The second issue, raised by the Commissioner, questions whether the assessee is entitled to a depreciation allowance on the expenditure incurred. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj), held that the expenditure was indeed capital in nature and thus, the assessee was entitled to depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized that the technical know-how, embodied in patterns and designs, constituted a "plant" under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus depreciation could be claimed. However, the High Court noted that the Tribunal did not provide the requisite basic facts necessary for answering the reference. The Court emphasized the importance of proper findings of fact by the Tribunal, as laid down in Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 473 (SC). The Court pointed out that the Tribunal must clearly state what findings of the AAC it agreed with or modified and include these in the statement of the case. The Court reiterated the principles from the Elecon Engineering Co. case, stating that for depreciation to be claimed, the asset must: 1. Fulfill the function of a plant in the assessee's trading activity. 2. Be owned by the assessee. 3. Be used for the purposes of the assessee's business or profession. The Court further explained that know-how, in whatever form, could diminish in value over the years by obsolescence, and thus, it qualifies as a plant eligible for depreciation under Section 32. In the present case, the Court noted that both parties agreed on the relevant facts, and there was no dispute that the technical know-how satisfied the requirements of a plant, was owned by the assessee, and was used for business purposes. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to call for a fresh statement of the case or refuse to answer the question. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was justified in classifying the expenditure as capital and allowing depreciation. The answer to the second question was in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
