9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Rs. 1 crore paid for the trade-mark "Hilton." 2. Deduction on account of belated payment of provident fund. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Rs. 1 crore paid for the trade-mark "Hilton": The primary issue revolves around whether the Rs. 1 crore paid by the assessee-company to M/s Hilton Rubber Ltd. (HRL) for the trade-mark "Hilton" should be treated as a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the IT Act. The assessee claimed it as a revenue expenditure, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed it, treating it as a capital expenditure. The assessee entered into a trade-mark license agreement with HRL on 9th Nov., 1995, paying Rs. 1 crore for the right to use the trade-mark for ten years, with a possibility of fresh negotiation thereafter. The AO argued that this payment was for procuring an enduring benefit and thus should be treated as a capital expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, which the Revenue argued was not applicable. The Tribunal examined the agreements dated 27th Jan., 1993, and 9th Nov., 1995, along with a share purchase agreement also dated 9th Nov., 1995. The 1993 agreement required the assessee to pay a running royalty, treated as revenue expenditure. However, the 1995 agreements indicated a lump sum payment for the trade-mark's permanent use, suggesting a capital expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the payment of Rs. 1 crore was for acquiring an enduring benefit and thus constituted a capital expenditure. The CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court's decision was deemed inappropriate as the facts were different. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's assessment, treating the expenditure as capital in nature. 2. Deduction on account of belated payment of provident fund: The second issue concerned the delayed payment of provident fund (PF). The AO disallowed the payment, but the CIT(A) allowed it, following decisions from various Tribunal Benches and the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. Both parties admitted that the assessee made the PF/EPF and ESI payments within the grace period. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction as the payments were made within the grace period. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. The Rs. 1 crore paid for the trade-mark "Hilton" was treated as capital expenditure, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the deduction for the belated PF payment was upheld as it was made within the grace period.
|
