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>Tribunal Upholds Assessment: Technical Fees as Revenue Expenditure</h1> <h3>The ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad Versus M/s. Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of technical know-how ... Disallowance of expenditure considering it to be a capital expenditure -CIT-A deleted the addition HELD THAT:- When the matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A) he noted that in A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014- 15 the addition made by the A.O. has been deleted by his predecessor. He also noted that for those years the order of Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld by the Tribunal. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) has been pointed-out by Revenue nor has Revenue placed on record any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years has been set aside, overruled or modified by higher judicial forum. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus dismiss the grounds of the Revenue. Issues:1. Deletion of addition of Rs.3,60,48,535/- as capital expenditure for technical know-how fees.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. The case involved the deletion of an addition of Rs.3,60,48,535/- by the Ld. CIT(A) despite the Revenue arguing that the expenditure incurred on technical know-how paid to the parent company for acquiring an intangible asset was capital in nature. The Revenue contended that the ownership of the technology developed by the assessee vested permanently with the assessee, making it a capital expenditure. The A.O. disallowed the expenditure, considering it to be capital expenditure for acquiring know-how under a license, falling within the ambit of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. made a net disallowance of the amount in question after allowing the claim of depreciation.The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favor of the assessee, noting that similar disallowances made by the A.O. for previous assessment years had been deleted by his predecessor. The Ld. CIT(A) also mentioned that the Tribunal had upheld the orders in favor of the assessee for the previous years. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), appealed before the Tribunal.During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Ld. D.R. supported the A.O.'s order, while the Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Authorized Representative highlighted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions and examining the records, found no fallacy in the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years had not been set aside, overruled, or modified by a higher judicial forum. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs.3,60,48,535/-.In conclusion, the Tribunal pronounced the order on 30.06.2022, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and affirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of the technical know-how fees as revenue expenditure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
