2009 (11) TMI 277 - HC - Income Tax

Business Expenditure- The assessee was engaged in the business of bidi. For the assessment year 1992-93, it had made payment of Rs. 12,73,523 by way of commission to the directors calculated at 10 percent. of the net profit and the Assessing Officer directors calculated at 10 percent of the net profit and the assessing officer held only Rs. 3,73,522 could be allowed and, accordingly, disallowed Rs. 9 lakhs. The Assessing officer treated Rs. 2,95,390 paid by the assessee towards use of trade mark as royalty amount and accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. The Tribunal deleted the disallowances. Held that- dismissing the appeal. As the commission was paid to the directors for their financial involvement and for giving guarantee for loan taken by the company. The Tribunal had found that it was not in excess. The Commission was deductible.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of payment of commission to directors of assessee-company
2. Addition of royalty payment for the use of trade mark
3. Deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Payment:
The appellant, a private limited company engaged in the bidi business, had made a commission payment to directors, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The dispute centered around the justification of deleting the payment of commission to directors from the net of tax. The Tribunal, on appeal, dislodged the finding of the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that the commission paid to directors was not in lieu of salary but for their financial involvement and guarantee for loans, thus not to be considered as salary. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering the question in favor of the assessee.

2. Addition of Royalty Payment for Trade Mark:
The Assessing Officer treated the payment made by the assessee towards the use of a trade mark as capital expenditure, disallowing it. However, the Tribunal allowed the payment of royalty for the use of the trade mark. Citing previous decisions, the court emphasized that the payment for the exploitation of the trade mark was an allowable revenue expenditure. The court referred to various cases where payments for the use of trade marks were considered revenue expenditures. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of royalty payment for the use of the trade mark.

3. Deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act, treating the unit as old and not new. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction. The court, in line with previous decisions, supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. The court dismissed the appeal, finding it devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Tribunal's decisions regarding the disallowance of commission payment to directors and the addition of royalty payment for the use of a trade mark. The court also supported the allowance of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.