9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1024 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of royalty and model fees - HELD THAT - Neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances, legal points or decided precedents for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from view already taken on the issue by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi and by Hon ble Delhi High Court in aforesaid orders 2017 (8) TMI 1535 - ITAT DELHI AND 2019 (5) TMI 1008 - DELHI HIGH COURT respectively. Respectfully following above we also decide the disputed issue regarding royalty and lump sum fee in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order of the Ld. CIT on this issue and dismiss the first ground of appeal in the appeal filed by Revenue. As we are not adjudicating any other ground in the present appeal, for statistical purposes the appeal is dismissed, as far Ground No. 1 of appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of royalty and lump sum fee as capital or revenue expenditure. Detailed Analysis: (A) Background of the Appeal: This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-LTU, New Delhi, dated 31.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10. (B) Assessment Order: The Assessment Order dated 22.03.2013 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein the total income was assessed at ?1665,09,05,642/- as against returned income of Nil. Additions included royalty and lump sum fee amounting to ?156,32,14,000/-. The AO treated these payments as capital expenditure based on the Technical Collaboration Agreement (TCA) between the assessee and Honda Motor Japan. The AO's reasoning included: - The acquisition of technical know-how was crucial for manufacturing cars in India. - The payment resulted in an enduring benefit. - Similar payments in earlier years were treated as capital expenditure. (B.1) CIT(A) Order: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)”] deleted this addition, following the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, holding the expenditure as revenue in nature. (C) ITAT's Previous Decision: Revenue’s appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi, which sustained the CIT(A)'s order, holding that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision. (C.1) Delhi High Court Remand: The Revenue took the matter to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which remitted the issue back to the ITAT for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for an appropriate analysis of the agreement in question. (C.2) Reconsideration by ITAT: The ITAT reconsidered the issue in light of the High Court's directions and the new agreement of 2005. The ITAT noted that similar payments for Assessment Year 2010-11 were held to be revenue in nature. The ITAT found that the payments were for the use of technical information and not for setting up a new business, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court's decision for earlier years. (D) Analysis of the Agreement: The ITAT analyzed the agreement and noted: - The payments were for technical information to improve existing products. - The assessee was already in operation for more than 10 years at the time of the agreement. - The payments were made for running royalty on sales and model fees for new models, which are revenue in nature. (D.1) Delhi High Court's Confirmation: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, confirming the ITAT's decision that the payments were revenue in nature. (E) ITAT's Final Decision: The ITAT, following the High Court's decision and its own previous order, held that the royalty and lump sum fee payments for Assessment Year 2009-10 were revenue in nature. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. (F) Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the facts and circumstances for Assessment Year 2009-10 were identical to those for Assessment Year 2010-11. Respectfully following the High Court and ITAT's previous decisions, the ITAT decided the issue in favor of the assessee, treating the royalty and lump sum fee as revenue expenditure. (G) Result: The appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 05/11/2019.
|
