TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules payments for technical knowledge as revenue, not capital.</h1> <h3>Mysore Kirloskar Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore</h3> The High Court determined that payments to Alfred Herbert Ltd. and Landis Tool Company were revenue in nature, not capital, as they were for technical ... Business Expenditure, In Part, Income Tax Act Issues Involved:1. Nature of payments to Alfred Herbert Ltd.2. Nature of payments to Landis Tool Company.3. Nature of payments to Monarch Machine Tools Company.Summary:1. Nature of payments to Alfred Herbert Ltd.:The primary issue was whether the payments made to Alfred Herbert Ltd. were capital or revenue in nature. The Tribunal had previously held these payments to be capital in nature. However, the High Court overruled this decision, stating that the payments were for acquiring technical knowledge and know-how, which did not constitute the acquisition of a capital asset. The court emphasized that the agreement did not transfer any asset or enduring advantage to the assessee, and the technical knowledge was to be used for running the business. Therefore, the payments were deemed to be of a revenue nature and allowable u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Nature of payments to Landis Tool Company:Similar to the payments to Alfred Herbert Ltd., the Tribunal had held the payments to Landis Tool Company to be capital in nature. The High Court, however, found that the payments were for technical assistance and know-how, which were essential for the business operations but did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset. The court concluded that these payments were also of a revenue nature and allowable u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Nature of payments to Monarch Machine Tools Company:The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held that the payments to Monarch Machine Tools Company were of a revenue nature. The High Court agreed with this finding, noting that the payments were for technical assistance necessary for the business and did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset. Thus, the payments were allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the payments made to Alfred Herbert Ltd. and Landis Tool Company were of a revenue nature and allowable u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the payments to Monarch Machine Tools Company, affirming that they were also of a revenue nature. The judgment overruled the previous decision in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 67 ITR 23 (Mys), which had incorrectly classified similar payments as capital in nature.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
