1975 (3) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Payment for Knowledge: High Court Rules on Capital Expenditure

The High Court affirmed that the payment made to Dominit was for acquiring knowledge or an advantage of an enduring nature, thus constituting capital ... Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Foreign Company Issues Involved:1. Nature of the payment made to Dominit: Capital or Revenue Expenditure.Summary:Nature of the Payment Made to Dominit: Capital or Revenue ExpenditureThe assessee, a public limited company, entered into an agreement with a West German company, Dominit, for technical assistance in manufacturing transformers. The agreement included provisions for technical aid, designs, patents, and the use of technical know-how. The assessee paid Dominit a fee of 3% of its annual turnover, amounting to Rs. 56,865 for the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer allowed only 50% of this fee as revenue expenditure, treating the remaining 50% as capital expenditure, arguing that the payment was partly for acquiring an asset of a permanent nature.On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the entire fee as revenue expenditure, considering the technical assistance as limited to the agreement period and the payment as royalty. However, the Tribunal categorized the services into three types: assistance for establishment, technical know-how, and the right to use patents. It held that the fees for the first two categories were capital in nature, as they brought into existence a new business and a new source of income, while the fee for the third category was revenue in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to disallow 50% of the fee as capital expenditure.The High Court, referencing its judgment in T.C. No. 299 of 1968 (Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax), affirmed that the payment was for acquiring knowledge or an advantage of an enduring nature. The periodic payment linked to turnover did not alter its capital nature. Thus, the court answered the reference in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee and confirming that 50% of the payment was rightly treated as capital expenditure.