2018 (11) TMI 507 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on royalty payment addition

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of royalty payment. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ... Disallowance of royalty paid - Held that:- Facts in the case of Southern Switch gear Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] (relied upon by the AO in his order) in which there was a collaboration agreement with a foreign company and payments were made on lump sum basis in five equal installments. We find that on exactly similar issue the predecessor of the Ld. CIT(A) in the assessment year 2008-09 has allowed the payment of royalty to the assessee and this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal [2016 (2) TMI 84 - ITAT DELHI] - DR could not controvert this factual position - addition towards royalty payment to be deleted - decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against deletion of addition of royalty payment made by AO.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the deletion of an addition of royalty payment made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and fabrication, had paid a royalty of Rs. 1,64,00,000, which the AO treated as capital expenditure. The AO relied on a Supreme Court decision to support this treatment. The assessee submitted the technical services and license agreement to justify the royalty payment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and deleted the addition, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court decision. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal challenging this decision.During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated its stance that the royalty payment should be treated as capital expenditure based on the Supreme Court decision. The Assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting the distinction made from the Supreme Court case and presenting a previous ITAT decision upholding a similar issue in favor of the assessee.The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and the CIT(A)'s findings from a previous year. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the facts of the case differed from the Supreme Court precedent cited by the AO. The Tribunal noted that in a previous assessment year, the CIT(A) had allowed a similar royalty payment, and this decision was upheld by the Tribunal. Finding no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,64,00,000 towards royalty payment.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of royalty payment. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound, considering the distinctions in the case from the precedent cited by the AO and the previous decision in favor of the assessee.