9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditures were for the purpose of augmenting the business of the assessee and did not result into any enduring benefit such expenditures were correctly allowed as revenue expenditures. We are not unmindful of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Cars (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income – Tax reported in [2017 (6) TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in which on facts it was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.06.2016 raising the following questions for our consideration: [ A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of Royalty of ₹ 71,75,900/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and thereby upholding the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The Assessing Officer had held that the expenditure was a capital expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) in a detailed discussion, following various decisions of this court and examining the facts of the case, ruled in favour of the assessee. He came to factual findings that the payment of royalty for use of trademark enabled the assessee to market the product more easily. It was thus a profit earning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly allowed as revenue expenditures. We are not unmindful of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Cars (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2017] 395 ITR 713 in which on facts it was held that the royalty payment for obtaining technical knowhow for the entire period of agreement was a capital expenditure. The Supreme Court confirmed the view of the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
