2015 (7) TMI 166 - AT - Income Tax

Technical know-how transfer - whether the expenditure incurred for the acquisition in question is in the capital filed or revenue? - Held that - Perusal of the agreements clearly demonstrate that the assessee has acquired technical know-how by way of transfer from Mr.Trapp. The agreement with Mr.Glenn Trapp is for a period of 04 years. A perusal of this agreement further demonstrates that the expenditure in question was incurred for acquiring know-how with an object of improving the manufacturing process of continuous casting activities. Thus, it is a case of improving the manufacturing process, increasing efficiency and consequent profitability by incurring expenditure for acquiring technical know-how and technical assistance. As regards the issue as to whether there is enduring benefit, the company represented before the A.O. that there was no positive results consequent to this agreement and in fact the expenditure was infructuous expenditure. On facts we are of the opinion that the assessee has not acquired any capital asset nor any enduring benefit in this case. Thus, in our view the expenditure in question is in the revenue field. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of environmental study expenses - revenue v/s capital - Held that - The expenditure was incurred for modernisation cum expansion of its existing Rajgangpur Cement Plant. The assessee has to statutorily obtain certain environmental clearances, for which the study has to be made as per the Guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and the Orissa Pollution Control Board. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the expenditure in question is in the revenue field. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on foreign travel - A.O. disallowed 80% of the expenses on ad-hoc basis - FAA making a disallowance of 20% of the total foreign travel expenses on the ground that there is a possibility of personal component in such expenditure - Held that - adhoc disallowances cannot be sustained, unless there is evidence. The assessee has furnished trip wise details of its Sr.Executives and has also furnished the business transacted in each trip, export details, customer wise details of exports to various countries. Even copies of discussions held and copies of tour reports were furnished. In the face of such overwhelming evidences, to make an adhoc disallowance on surmises and conjectures cannot countenanced. In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed and the disallowance of 20% is deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of payment on account of technical know-how.
2. Disallowance of environmental study expenses.
3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses.
4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
5. Levy of interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Payment on Account of Technical Know-How:
The assessee entered into an agreement with Mr. Glenn Ray Trapp for technical know-how regarding Continuous Casting refractories. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated this expenditure as capital, allowing depreciation at 25%, while the First Appellate Authority upheld this view, citing enduring benefit. The assessee argued that the expenditure did not result in any enduring benefit or capital asset, relying on various case laws. The Tribunal observed that the agreement was for four years and aimed at improving manufacturing processes. Since there was no enduring benefit or capital asset acquired, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was revenue in nature and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

2. Disallowance of Environmental Study Expenses:
The assessee incurred Rs. 12,10,000 for an Environmental Impact Assessment study for modernizing its Rajgangpur Cement Plant. Both the A.O. and the First Appellate Authority treated this as capital expenditure. The Tribunal, after considering the statutory requirement for environmental clearances, held that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Reliance was placed on decisions from the Jurisdictional High Court, and the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

3. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses:
The A.O. disallowed 80% of the foreign travel expenses on an ad-hoc basis due to lack of details, which the First Appellate Authority reduced to 20%, suspecting personal expenses. The assessee contended that all travelers were senior employees and provided substantial documentation supporting the business nature of the trips. The Tribunal found the disallowance arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, noting that the assessee had furnished detailed records of business activities during the trips. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the 20% disallowance, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee did not press this ground due to the smallness of the disallowance, provided that the A.O.'s finding would not serve as a precedent. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as 'not pressed,' noting that it would not have any precedence value.

5. Levy of Interest:
This ground was consequential in nature and was not separately adjudicated.

Appeal by Revenue:
The Revenue's appeal concerning the partial deletion of foreign travel expenses disallowance was dismissed, consistent with the Tribunal's decision on the assessee's appeal.

Appeal for A.Y. 2006-07:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds on technical know-how fees and environmental study expenses, consistent with its findings for A.Y. 2005-06. The ground on disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed, and the ground on the levy of interest was noted as consequential.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 were partly allowed, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 29th June 2015.

← Previous Next →