Appeal outcome: Deduction granted for payment, not capital expenditure.

The appeal involved the withdrawal of certain grounds due to settlement under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings and the confirmation of the disallowance of a payment for technical know-how and trademark/logo. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of the payment as a revenue expenditure, classifying it as not a capital expenditure. The total payment of Rs. 2.94 crore was granted as a deduction, resulting in the appeal being partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of Ground Nos. 1 to 6.
2. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 2,94,77,926/- on account of payment for technical know-how and trademark/logo.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Ground Nos. 1 to 6:
- Summary: The assessee's representative withdrew Ground Nos. 1 to 6 due to the settlement of the dispute under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings. Consequently, these grounds were dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs. 2,94,77,926/- on Account of Payment for Technical Know-How and Trademark/Logo:
- Facts of the Case: The assessee, an Indian company part of the GKN Group, engaged in manufacturing and selling Constant Velocity Joints (CVJ), entered into agreements with GKN Automotive GmbH, Germany, and GKN Holdings plc., UK, for technical know-how and trademark usage respectively. The total payment made was Rs. 2,94,77,926/-.

- Assessing Officer's (AO) Stand: The AO treated the total payment as a capital expenditure, thereby disallowing the claimed revenue expenditure. This decision was based on the technical collaboration agreement and the nature of the payments made.

- Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Stand: The DRP noted that this issue had been in dispute for the preceding two assessment years without final resolution, and upheld the AO’s addition.

- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal separated the payments into two categories: Rs. 71 lakh for technical know-how and Rs. 2.23 crore for trademark/brand royalty.

a. Payment of Rs. 71 Lakh for Technical Know-How:
- Agreement Details: The agreement granted the assessee an exclusive right to use the know-how for manufacturing CVJ and non-exclusive rights for selling them in a defined territory. The agreement also emphasized confidentiality, non-disclosure, and non-assignment of the know-how.

- Tribunal's Findings:
- The payment was for the "use" of technical know-how, not for acquiring ownership.
- The agreement included clauses ensuring the licensor retained proprietary rights, and the licensee could not disclose or assign the know-how.
- Upon termination, the licensee had to cease using the know-how and return all materials.
- The payment of 3% of the selling price for using the know-how was deemed a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure.

- Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 71 lakh as revenue expenditure.

b. Payment of Rs. 2.23 Crore for Trademark/Brand Royalty:
- Agreement Details: The agreement granted a non-exclusive license to use trademarks, with the licensor retaining ownership. The licensee was required to cease using the trademarks upon termination of the agreement.

- Tribunal's Findings:
- The payment was for the "use" of trademarks, not for acquiring ownership.
- The agreement clearly stated that the ownership of the trademarks remained with the licensor.
- The payment was made for the right to use the trademarks, which is a revenue expenditure.

- Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 2.23 crore as revenue expenditure.

Final Judgment:
- Total Payment: The total payment of Rs. 2.94 crore made by the assessee for the use of technical know-how and trademarks was classified as a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.
- Outcome: The appeal was partly allowed, granting the deduction for the sum of Rs. 2.94 crore.

Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2016.

---