9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the assessment of payments made by the assessee to a foreign collaborator under a collaboration agreement, determining whether the payments constitute revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. T.C.No. 59/72 (Assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68): The Income-tax Officer disallowed 85% of the payments as capital expenditure, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed only 50% as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that the entire payments constituted revenue expenditure, which is challenged by the Commissioner of Income-tax. T.C.No. 33/74 (Assessment year 1968-69) & T.C.No. 234/74 (Assessment year 1969-70): Similar to the first case, the Tribunal held that the entire annual payment should be allowed as a deduction, leading to a challenge by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The case involved interpreting the terms of the collaboration agreement to determine the nature of the payments made by the assessee to the foreign collaborator. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ciba of India Ltd. was cited by the assessee to support their claim that the payments constituted revenue expenditure, while the department relied on Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax to argue that a portion of the payments should be treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the entire payments made by the assessee constituted revenue expenditure based on the specific clauses of the agreement. The agreement granted the assessee a license to use patents and designs exclusively in India for a duration of 10 years, with provisions for extension subject to government approval. The agreement also outlined responsibilities of the foreign collaborator regarding patents, modifications, and counterfeit defense. The absence of a specific provision prohibiting the assessee from using the know-how after the agreement's end was deemed irrelevant, as clause (x) of the agreement indicated that the assessee did not acquire an absolute right to the know-how. The payment clause of the agreement explicitly stated that the amount was for know-how, patents, and manufacturing units, aligning with the nature of the license granted. Given the distinct features of the agreement compared to the case in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., the Tribunal's decision was upheld. The Tribunal correctly applied the principles from Ciba of India Ltd. to determine that the payments constituted revenue expenditure, leading to a favorable ruling for the assessee in all three references. The judgment affirms that the payments made by the assessee under the collaboration agreement were revenue expenditure, as per the specific terms of the agreement.
|
