1983 (10) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Court ruling on technical service charges, relief under section 80, gratuity liability deduction, and royalty expenditure

The court ruled in favor of the assessee on the disallowance of technical service charges as capital expenditure and entitlement to relief under section ... Business Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking, Technical Charges And Royalty Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of technical service charges as capital expenditure.2. Entitlement to relief u/s 80 for the Kottayam unit.3. Deduction of incremental liability for gratuity.4. Weighted deduction u/s 35B for royalty related to export sales.Summary:Issue 1: Disallowance of Technical Service Charges as Capital ExpenditureThe court referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case (CIT v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 678) and answered the question against the Revenue, holding that the sum of Rs. 5,12,306 paid to Mansfield Tyre and Rubber Company was not liable to be disallowed as capital expenditure.Issue 2: Entitlement to Relief u/s 80 for Kottayam UnitThe court followed its previous ruling in T.C. No. 188/78 (CIT v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 405) and answered in the affirmative, confirming that the assessee was entitled to relief u/s 80 for its Kottayam unit.Issue 3: Deduction of Incremental Liability for GratuityThe court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which allowed the deduction of incremental liability for gratuity based on actuarial valuation. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559 (SC) and CIT v. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 415, affirming that the assessee is entitled to compute net profits after deducting the incremental liability for gratuity. The question was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.Issue 4: Weighted Deduction u/s 35B for Royalty Related to Export SalesThe court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the collaboration agreement and the scope of s. 35B. The royalty was payable for technical know-how and not exclusively for export sales. The court held that the expenditure did not fall under clause (b)(iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 35B, as it was not incurred in connection with the distribution, supply, or sale of goods outside India. The question was reframed and answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.