9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of royalty received from CMERI. 2. Nature of the receipt (capital vs. revenue). 3. Nexus of the receipt with employment. 4. Application of Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Royalty Received from CMERI: The primary issue was whether the sums of Rs. 45,342 and Rs. 68,221 received by the assessee from CMERI, Durgapur, as royalty were taxable. The Assessing Officer treated these amounts as "income from other sources," asserting they had a direct nexus with the assessee's employment at CMERI. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that these were capital receipts and thus not taxable, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty. The Tribunal's Judicial Member initially upheld the Assessing Officer's view, but the Accountant Member disagreed, leading to a reference to the Third Member. 2. Nature of the Receipt (Capital vs. Revenue): The CIT(A) and the Accountant Member considered the royalty received by the assessee as a capital receipt. They reasoned that the assessee had irrevocably assigned the patent rights to CMERI, making the consideration received a capital receipt. The CIT(A) cited various legal precedents and commentary to support this view, emphasizing that the assignment of a patent is a transfer of a capital asset, and any consideration received for such an assignment is on capital account and not taxable under sections 45 to 48 of the Income-tax Act. The Judicial Member, however, viewed the amounts as revenue receipts, arguing that the organization had incurred significant expenses for the research, and the payments were in lieu of the assessee's contributions. 3. Nexus of the Receipt with Employment: The Assessing Officer and the Judicial Member argued that the amounts received were linked to the assessee's employment with CMERI, and thus should be taxed as income from other sources. They emphasized that the research and subsequent invention were part of the assessee's employment duties, and the organization had incurred substantial expenses for the research. The Accountant Member and the CIT(A) countered that the patent rights were assigned irrevocably to CMERI, and any subsequent payments were a result of the exploitation of these patents by CMERI, making the receipts capital in nature. 4. Application of Supreme Court Judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty: The CIT(A) and the Accountant Member relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty, which held that the consideration received for the transfer of a self-generated capital asset with no cost of acquisition is not taxable. They argued that since the patent rights were self-generated by the assessee and assigned irrevocably to CMERI, the amounts received were not taxable as there was no cost of acquisition. The Judicial Member did not consider this judgment applicable, focusing instead on the employment nexus and the expenses incurred by the organization. Third Member Decision: The Third Member sided with the Accountant Member, concluding that the receipts were capital in nature and not taxable. The Third Member emphasized that the patent rights were irrevocably assigned to CMERI, making the consideration received a capital receipt. The decision also noted the absence of evidence regarding the expenses incurred by CMERI for the research, and reiterated the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty. The Third Member upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the amounts received were not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Conclusion: The final judgment confirmed that the amounts of Rs. 45,342 and Rs. 68,221 received by the assessee from CMERI were capital receipts and not taxable, aligning with the CIT(A) and the Accountant Member's views. The decision was based on the irrevocable assignment of patent rights, the nature of the receipts as capital, and the application of the Supreme Court judgment in B.C. Srinivasa Setty.
|
