2016 (7) TMI 1095 - AT - Income Tax

Payment of royalty to USA company - nature of payment - Revenue expenditure or capital expenditure eligible for depreciation @25% - Held that - CIT(Appeals) as relying on own order for earlier assessment years was well justified in treating the royalty payments made to M/s Chevron Oronite Company LLC USA as nothing but revenue expenditure, not resulting in any acquisition of intangible assets. The assessee could continue to use the technology even after the expiry of the period of payment of royalty. Therefore, when the lump sum royalty was separately agreed and paid, then the running royalty, in the facts and circumstances, would only be a revenue expenditure paid for the use of the licence, trade mark and technical information for a particular period. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether royalty payments made by the assessee to a company are revenue in nature or capital expenditure eligible for depreciation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding royalty payments made by the assessee to a company. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in considering the royalty payments as revenue expenditure.

2. The Revenue argued that the mode of payment or quantification of royalty in relation to turnover does not alter the purpose of infusion of new technology for which the payment was made. The Revenue also emphasized that royalty falls under intangible assets as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

3. The Assessing Officer treated the royalty payment as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation, based on the exclusive right granted to the assessee to manufacture and sell products using licensed technology. The Assessing Officer disallowed the royalty payment and allowed depreciation, citing the provisions of Sec. 32 of the Act.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and held that the royalty payment is a revenue expenditure. The Commissioner partly allowed the appeal based on the previous Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, analyzed the issue of royalty payment and referred to its previous decisions on similar matters. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure eligible for depreciation.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere pendency of an appeal before the High Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on similar issues and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner's decision that the royalty payments made by the assessee were revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous rulings and the nature of the royalty payments in question.