2017 (4) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of royalty expenses - Held that - Similar royalty expenditure was deleted by CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 Assessing Officer has verified and found that the assessee was deriving royalty income mainly on technical know-how purchase from M/s Hercules USA vide agreement dated 01/01/2003 whom the royalty is paid 5% of net sale value of the product. The assessee has sold this technical know-how to one party Connell Brothers Company (CBC) with which he entered into agreement and as per this said agreement the assessee would receive a royalty payment of 14% on net sales value of the product against which the assessee has to make payment of 5% to Hercules USA. Thus the difference of 9% on the sales value is effected. The assessee has credited in profit and loss account 14% of the royalty income and net sale value was arrived at. After giving 5% to Hercules and considering the same agreement the CIT(A) was of a view that the addition on account of difference is not required therefore, same was deleted by CIT(A) and the matter went to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed the same. Therefore, this issue is covered in the favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of expenditure amounting to ?22,92,306

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an assessee, filed appeals against the order of CIT(A)-24 Mumbai for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 regarding the disallowance of expenditure amounting to ?22,92,306.
2. The appellant was engaged in providing technology know-how for manufacturing chemical products and declared royalty income of ?2.09 crore, along with other income. The AO disallowed expenses claimed by the appellant towards employees' cost and traveling, leading to the disallowance in question.
3. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that additional evidence was not admitted and did not consider the alternative argument presented by the appellant regarding the reversal of royalty expenses in subsequent years.
4. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the current year under consideration based on a similar issue in the previous year's assessment and decided to hear the appeal on merit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the disallowance made by the AO was similar to the one made in the previous assessment year, which was deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal.
2. The appellant's argument was supported by the fact that the royalty income was earned on different products, with varying royalty percentages, and the disallowance was not justified based on the agreements entered into by the appellant.
3. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was deleted in the previous year's assessment, and based on similar facts and agreements, the disallowance for the current year was also unjustified.
4. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where the disallowance of royalty expenditure was deleted, emphasizing that the agreements clearly specified royalty percentages for different products, and hence, the disallowance was unwarranted.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal, following previous decisions and considering the agreements between the parties, allowed the appeal of the assessee regarding the disallowance of expenditure amounting to ?22,92,306.
2. The Tribunal found that the disallowance was not justified based on the agreements and royalty percentages specified for different products, as evidenced by the appellant's submissions and previous rulings.
3. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principles of consistency and fairness, ensuring that the appellant was not subjected to double taxation and that the disallowance was not warranted based on the facts and agreements presented.
4. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of considering the specific terms of agreements and royalty percentages while determining the allowability of expenses, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the appellant.