1992 (3) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Nature of royalty payment for reproduction rights: capital or revenue expenditure.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263, arguing that the Commissioner acted as an appellate authority, which is not his function. The Madras High Court in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 clarified that section 263 is for correcting distortions and prejudices to the revenue, not for jurisdictional correction or review of subordinate's orders. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Commissioner's order indicated a different opinion from the Assessing Officer, which is not the purpose of section 263. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's action, emphasizing that section 263 is not intended for a mere change of opinion.

Nature of Royalty Payment:
The assessee argued that the royalty paid for obtaining reproduction rights is a revenue expenditure. The master plate, used to reproduce audio and video cassettes, is akin to raw material. The Tribunal noted that the master plate is essential for producing copies and is treated as raw material. The payment structure, involving an initial lump sum and subsequent royalties based on sales, supports the view that the expenditure is revenue in nature. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court rulings in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 and Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 566, which held similar payments as revenue expenditures. The Tribunal concluded that the royalty payment, including the cost of the master plate, is fully allowable as a revenue deduction in computing business income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner's action u/s 263 and allowing the royalty payment as a revenue expenditure.