TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court deems payment as revenue expenditure, aligning with precedents. Payment for technical know-how akin to service.</h1> The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the payment of Rs. 13,28,450 was revenue expenditure. The Court held that the technical know-how ... Capital Gains, Distributable Income, Transfer Issues Involved:1. Whether the payment of Rs. 13,28,450 was capital or revenue expenditure.2. The nature of the technical know-how and its impact on the classification of the expenditure.3. The relevance of exclusivity and the right to use technical know-how post-agreement.Summary:Issue 1: Nature of ExpenditureThe Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 13,28,450 was revenue expenditure. The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing weighing and testing machines, entered into an agreement with Revere Corporation for the use of trademarks, patents, and copyrights. The Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the payment as capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal concluded it was revenue expenditure, citing that the technical know-how and information provided did not create a tangible asset or enduring benefit.Issue 2: Technical Know-How as Revenue ExpenditureThe Tribunal referenced several cases, including Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 773 and CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 538, to support its decision. It was noted that technical know-how is not a tangible asset and does not create a capital asset. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment was for the use of technical information and know-how, which is akin to a teacher imparting knowledge to a pupil, and thus should be treated as revenue expenditure.Issue 3: Exclusivity and Post-Agreement UseThe Tribunal addressed the exclusivity clause in the agreement, which prohibited the disclosure of technical information to others and allowed the assessee to use the know-how even after the agreement's termination. The Tribunal cited decisions from various High Courts, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Praga Tools Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd., which held that such exclusivity does not alter the nature of the expenditure from revenue to capital.Conclusion:The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the payment of Rs. 13,28,450 was revenue expenditure. The Court reiterated that the acquisition of technical know-how, even with the right to use it post-agreement, does not create a capital asset or enduring benefit. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 and other relevant cases to support its conclusion. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
