TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether provision for interest payable to the Customs Department was deductible; (ii) whether interest payable to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises was allowable as deduction; (iii) whether receipts from sub-licensing technical know-how were taxable as business income or capital gains; (iv) whether deduction under section 80JJAA was admissible for workmen employed for less than 300 days; (v) whether weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) had to be computed on gross R&D expenditure or on net expenditure after reducing R&D centre receipts; (vi) whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified; (vii) whether expenditure on application software and trademark-related intangibles was capital or revenue in nature; and (viii) whether the remand of the section 43B claim was sustainable.
Issue (i): whether provision for interest payable to the Customs Department was deductible.
Analysis: The issue was treated as covered against the assessee by earlier orders in its own case. Following the earlier view, the Tribunal found no error in the disallowance of the provision for interest payable to the Customs Department.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether interest payable to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises was allowable as deduction.
Analysis: Section 23 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 expressly bars deduction of delayed-payment interest, and section 24 gives the provision overriding effect. The Tribunal also treated the interest as penal in nature and therefore not allowable under the Income-tax Act.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether receipts from sub-licensing technical know-how were taxable as business income or capital gains.
Analysis: The assessee had only a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use the technology under the collaboration arrangement. The sub-licensing did not extinguish the assessee's right or amount to transfer of a capital asset; it was only a sharing of the right to use the technology.
Conclusion: The receipt was held to be business income and not capital gains, against the assessee.
Issue (iv): whether deduction under section 80JJAA was admissible for workmen employed for less than 300 days.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the statutory definition of "regular workmen" and held that for each year of eligibility the workman must satisfy the minimum period requirement. Workmen employed for less than 300 days in the relevant previous year were outside the statutory condition for deduction.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (v): whether weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) had to be computed on gross R&D expenditure or on net expenditure after reducing R&D centre receipts.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that income earned by the R&D centre and forming part of the assessee's total income could not be reduced from the expenditure for computing weighted deduction. Receipts that were in the nature of revenue income were distinguished from reimbursement or grants, and only the former could not be netted off.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (vi): whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified.
Analysis: On interest disallowance, the Tribunal applied the principle that where own funds exceed investments, interest disallowance may not survive, but the matter required verification of relevant funds position for the year. On administrative expenditure, the Tribunal held that the actual expenditure relatable to exempt income had to be examined and the matter required reconsideration instead of direct application of Rule 8D.
Conclusion: The issue was restored for limited verification and was not finally decided on merits.
Issue (vii): whether expenditure on application software and trademark-related intangibles was capital or revenue in nature.
Analysis: Applying the functional test and the principle that expenditure which does not bring into existence a new capital asset may still be revenue, the Tribunal held that expenditure on application software was revenue in nature. The depreciation claim on intangibles, including trademark-related expenditure, was also upheld.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (viii): whether the remand of the section 43B claim was sustainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the factual aspect of payment required verification and therefore the claim could be examined by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The issue was restored for verification and was not finally adjudicated on merits.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the weighted deduction and software-related revenue expenditure issues, while the disallowances on interest, MSME interest, technical know-how receipts, and section 80JJAA were sustained. The section 14A and section 43B matters were sent back for limited verification.
Ratio Decidendi: For section 35(2AB), revenue income of an approved R&D centre that forms part of the assessee's total income cannot be netted off against eligible expenditure, and for section 14A, disallowance must be grounded in the actual nexus of expenditure with exempt income, with own funds being relevant where they exceed investments.
TaxTMI 
