9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of technical service fees paid to Seymour. 2. Nature of the agreement between the assessee and Seymour (licensing agreement vs. acquisition of capital asset). 3. Classification of the technical know-how fee as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deductibility of Technical Service Fees Paid to Seymour: The primary question referred to the court was whether the payments made to Seymour for technical service fees during the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68 were admissible as a deduction. The assessee claimed these payments as deductible items in their tax returns. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the payment of royalty as deductible but disallowed the technical know-how fees, classifying them as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the present reference. 2. Nature of the Agreement Between the Assessee and Seymour: The Tribunal's findings indicated that the assessee entered into an agreement with Seymour to acquire technical know-how essential for commencing the manufacture of one-day alarm clocks in India. The agreement included the provision of blueprints, technical instructions, and quality control tests. The Tribunal concluded that the technical know-how acquired was a capital asset, as it enabled the assessee to launch its manufacturing project. The court examined the "Heads of Agreement" dated January 7, 1960, and the final agreement dated June 24, 1960. The agreements stipulated that Seymour would supply technical know-how initially for assembling clocks and later for manufacturing parts indigenously. The final agreement described itself as a "licensing agreement" and was for a period of five years, with an option for renewal subject to government approval. 3. Classification of the Technical Know-How Fee as Capital Expenditure or Revenue Expenditure: The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that the technical know-how fee of $10,000 was for acquiring a capital asset, as it provided initial knowledge for manufacturing clocks. However, the court disagreed with this view, emphasizing that the agreement was for a short duration of five years and described itself as a licensing agreement. The court noted that there was no provision in the agreement allowing the assessee to use the know-how after the expiry of the agreement period. The court concluded that the payment of $10,000 was a licensing fee for the use of technical know-how during the agreement period, not for acquiring an enduring asset. Therefore, the expenditure was of a revenue nature and deductible in computing the profits and gains of the business. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, holding that the technical service fees paid to Seymour were deductible as they constituted a licensing fee rather than a capital expenditure. The arrangement between the parties was deemed a licensing agreement, and the payment was for the use of technical know-how during the agreement period, making it a revenue expenditure. There was no order as to costs.
|
