1987 (2) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Having regard to the facts that the organisational set up under the distributorship agreement was to endure for seven years and upon the expiry of the period the assessee had no relationship with the organisation and that the period of agreement between the assessee and distributors was contemporaneous with the agreement between the assessee and Charles Walker under which the assessee became entitled to use the registered trade marks it must be considered to be a revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 50,000 was a capital expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal from the High Court of Allahabad regarding the deductibility of Rs. 50,000 expenditure by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of various products. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of deductibility to the High Court, which revolved around whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature. The agreement between the assessee and Charles Walker required the payment of Rs. 50,000 to Textile & General Supplies for establishing it as a distributor, and this payment was a condition for obtaining technical knowledge and know-how. The court emphasized that the nature of the expenditure must be determined based on the practical point of view and the specific facts of each case, rather than universal principles.

The judgment extensively discussed various legal precedents, including British Sugar Manufacturers Ltd. v. Harris and CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd., to determine the nature of the expenditure. It was highlighted that the aim and object of the expenditure, particularly in acquiring technical knowledge, was crucial in classifying it as capital or revenue. The court emphasized that no universal test could be applied in such cases, and each situation must be analyzed based on its unique circumstances and commercial advantages obtained.

The court concluded that the Rs. 50,000 payment was essentially part of the price paid by the assessee to acquire technical know-how, and it was a revenue expenditure. The obligation to appoint Textile & General Supplies as distributors was integral to the agreement with Charles Walker and a consideration for receiving the benefits. The court noted that the distributorship agreement was contemporaneous with the agreement with Charles Walker, and the payment was part of the price for acquiring technical knowledge. Therefore, the court upheld the High Court's decision that the expenditure was revenue in nature, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

In summary, the judgment delves into the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure based on the specific facts and commercial advantages gained. It underscores the importance of considering the purpose and context of the expenditure in determining its nature, rather than applying rigid principles. The decision provides a detailed analysis of the contractual obligations, the significance of the payment in acquiring technical knowledge, and the temporal and commercial relationships involved in classifying the expenditure as revenue.