Court rules technical know-how expenditure as revenue, not capital, under Income Tax Act.

The High Court held that the expenditure for procuring technical know-how was revenue in nature and should be allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, not Section 35AB. The court set aside the Tribunal's decision, ruling that Section 35AB applies only to capital expenditure. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount expended for procuring technical know-how should be allowed as expenditure under Section 35AB or Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the deduction under Section 35AB is applicable only for capital expenditure, while revenue expenditure should be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 35AB vs. Section 37 for Technical Know-how Expenditure:

The appellant, a company engaged in producing engineering products, entered into an agreement with a UK-based company, WCL, for procuring technical know-how. The appellant claimed a 100% deduction on the expenditure as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) categorized it under Section 35AB. The Tribunal, following the High Court's remand, upheld the AO's decision. The High Court had to determine whether the expenditure should be categorized under Section 35AB or Section 37.

2. Nature of Expenditure - Capital vs. Revenue:

The appellant argued that the technical know-how was not absolutely transferred but was only a right to use, thereby making the expenditure revenue in nature. The control over the know-how remained with WCL, and no enduring benefit accrued to the appellant. The appellant relied on several judgments, including CIT vs. Swaraj Engines Limited, which held that if the expenditure is revenue in nature, Section 35AB does not apply.

3. Interpretation of Relevant Clauses and Legal Precedents:

The High Court examined the agreement clauses, which indicated that the appellant had only the right to use the know-how without absolute acquisition. The clauses on confidentiality, termination, and manufacture demonstrated that the control remained with WCL. The court also considered CBDT Circulars and the Finance Minister's Budget Speech, which clarified that Section 35AB applies to capital expenditure.

4. Analysis of Judgments and Legal Provisions:

The court referred to several judgments, including Swaraj Engines Ltd., which emphasized that Section 35AB applies only to capital expenditure. The court noted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the expenditure was revenue in nature and incorrectly applied Section 35AB. The court distinguished the case from Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd., where the focus was on disputes regarding payment rather than the nature of the expenditure.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the expenditure incurred by the appellant for procuring technical know-how was revenue in nature and should be allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that Section 35AB is applicable only to capital expenditure and not to revenue expenditure. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---