Deductibility of Technical Know-How Fees under Income Tax Act: High Court Ruling

The High Court held that the amount paid by the assessee for acquiring technical know-how constituted revenue expenditure and was deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act. The court determined that the technical know-how did not create an asset of enduring nature and was essential for the profit-making process, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure. The decision favored the assessee, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the amount of Rs. 6,35,400 paid by the assessee to EID Parry Ltd. was deductible as revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the payment constituted capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deductibility of Amount as Revenue Expenditure

The High Court examined whether the amount of Rs. 6,35,400 paid by the assessee to EID Parry Ltd. for acquiring technical know-how was deductible as revenue expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the payment was for obtaining know-how for promoting the sale of fertilizers in India and should be considered as revenue expenditure.

Issue 2: Nature of Expenditure: Capital or Revenue

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially held that the payment was for securing technical know-how, which brought into existence an asset of an enduring nature, thus classifying it as capital expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the payment was partly for restricting competition and partly for acquiring an asset of enduring advantage.

The High Court referred to various precedents, including CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, to determine the nature of the expenditure. The court emphasized that the test of enduring benefit is not conclusive and must be applied considering the facts of each case. It noted that technical know-how is liable to speedy obsolescence and does not necessarily result in an asset of enduring benefit.

The court concluded that the technical know-how acquired by the assessee did not constitute an asset of enduring nature. The agreement did not transfer the property in the know-how to the assessee but only allowed its use in a specific area. The know-how was also not exclusive, as EID Parry could disclose it outside the specified area. The court held that the expenditure was part of the profit-making process and constituted revenue expenditure.

Conclusion:

The High Court held that the amount of Rs. 6,35,400 paid by the assessee for acquiring technical know-how under the agreement constituted revenue expenditure and was deductible u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act. The question referred was answered in favor of the assessee-company, with parties to bear their own costs.

---