Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether lump sums received under successive licensing arrangements for the disclosure and use of technical knowledge, drawings and engineering data constituted capital receipts or trading receipts chargeable to income tax, and whether such receipts formed part of the existing manufacturing trade.
Analysis: The technical knowledge described as "know-how" was treated as an intangible asset, but its use in the agreements did not amount to a disposal of a fixed capital asset. The appellants did not part with the whole or any substantial part of their capital structure; they exploited their knowledge by making it available for local manufacture in markets where they could not themselves sell engines. The repeated and deliberate licensing arrangements showed a trading policy and a method of deriving profit from existing manufacturing expertise, not a once-for-all realisation of capital. The receipts were therefore connected with the carrying on of the business and were properly characterised as trading receipts.
Conclusion: The lump sums were revenue receipts and taxable as trading profits. The answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.