Court declines to frame question on royalty payment nature, aligns with precedent. Adjourns for Revenue arguments.

The court declined to frame a question of law regarding the nature of payment of royalty and technical guidance fee, aligning with precedent. The case was adjourned to allow the Revenue to present arguments on the deletion of the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, indicating a willingness to consider further submissions before making a final decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the payment of royalty and technical guidance fee is revenue in natureRs.
2. Whether the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly deleted by the ITAT, holding that export commission is neither royalty nor fee for technical serviceRs.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the nature of payment of royalty and technical guidance fee. The court refers to a previous case, CIT v. Hero Honda Motors, where it was decided in favor of the Assessee that such payments are revenue in nature. Consequently, the court declines to frame a question of law on this issue, aligning with the precedent set in the mentioned case.

2. The second issue pertains to the deletion of the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ITAT. The court notes that the Revenue seeks to address arguments on this matter at a later date. The case is adjourned to allow the Revenue to present their arguments on 8th March 2016, indicating a willingness to consider further submissions before making a final decision on this issue.

---