Payment for Technical Know-How: Revenue vs. Capital Nature

The court held that the payment made by the assessee to M/s. Grasso was not of a capital nature but of a revenue nature, allowing it as a deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that the payment was for acquiring technical know-how for a limited period, not constituting acquisition of a capital asset. The department was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the payment made by the assessee to M/s. Grasso of Netherlands.
2. Whether the payment was of a capital or revenue nature.
3. Allowability of the payment as a deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Payment Made by the Assessee to M/s. Grasso of Netherlands:

The primary issue revolves around the payment of Rs. 77,756 made by the assessee to M/s. Grasso of Netherlands. The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Grasso to obtain scientific and technical knowledge, know-how, engineering data, calculations, drawings, designs, material specifications, experience, and continuous development with the benefit of all patents held by Grasso. The agreement aimed to enable the assessee to manufacture and sell industrial refrigerating compressors. The payment was made under Clause 17(a) of the agreement, which stipulated sums payable for the cost of drawings and the right to export.

2. Whether the Payment was of a Capital or Revenue Nature:

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction of Rs. 77,756, considering it a capital expenditure for acquiring technical know-how. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which relied on the decision in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 23 (Mys). The Tribunal held that the payment was part of the initial payment for acquiring technical know-how and thus of a capital nature.

However, the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 443 overruled the earlier decision, stating that the assessee acquired merely the right to draw upon the technical knowledge of the foreign company for a limited period, and did not acquire any asset or advantage of an enduring nature. Similarly, in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee did not acquire any asset or advantage of an enduring nature but merely had access to technical knowledge for a limited period.

3. Allowability of the Payment as a Deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The court considered the agreement as a whole, emphasizing that the primary objective was to acquire technical know-how for a limited period. The agreement included continuous updates and improvements from Grasso, and the assessee was restricted from disclosing the know-how to third parties. The court noted that the agreement did not constitute a separate contract for the purchase of drawings but was part of acquiring technical knowledge.

The court referenced several decisions, including CIT v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 538, where it was held that acquiring technical know-how and advice does not constitute acquiring a capital asset due to the rapid technological advancements and obsolescence. The court concluded that the payment made by the assessee was of a revenue nature and allowable as a deduction.

Conclusion:

The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the payment of Rs. 77,756 made by the assessee to M/s. Grasso was not of a capital nature and was allowable as a deduction. The department was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

---