2016 (4) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Royalty disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(2)(a)/(b) - Held that - Find no reason to differ from decision on this issue in the appellant s own case for the A.Y. 2007-08 and also agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that reduction in the rate of royalty from 5% to 2.5% on the sales made to M/s Suzuki India Ltd. during the year also indicates the genuineness of commercial arrangement and it is not an attempt to pass profits from the appellant to M/s Minda Industrial Ltd. and further that the AO s reasoning to invoke section 40A(2)(b) do not have legal backing because both the entities are taxable in the same tax bracket. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of royalty payments under section 40A(2)(a)/(b)
- Disallowance of depreciation on printers

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Department against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-IX for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing CNG/LPG Kits, filed its return of income declaring &8377; 7,89,84,290. The assessment was completed by the AO under section 143(3) determining total income at &8377; 7,94,68,030, with specific disallowances made.

2. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting all three additions made by the AO. The Department then appealed, challenging the deletion of two specific additions related to royalty payments and depreciation on printers.

3. The only issue remaining for adjudication was the disallowance of royalty amounting to &8377; 1,81,91,663 under section 40A(2)(a)/(b). The Department argued that the payment was not a business expenditure as the company already had the title 'Minda' prefixed to it, hence no payment for goodwill or brand name was necessary. The Department contended that the disallowance was rightly made by the AO.

4. The Ld. AR argued that the reduced royalty rate of 2.5% from 5% in the current year indicated a genuine business arrangement and not a means to pass profits to a group company. The AR cited relevant case laws to support the argument that it is for the businessman to decide what is necessary for their business, and expenses incurred for business purposes are allowable.

5. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the appeal by following the order for AY 2007-08, stating that no fresh material was presented by the Department to counter the findings. The Ld. CIT (A) found no reason to interfere with the earlier decision, as there was no change in the factual matrix. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) were upheld.