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 amounts described as technical fees under the licence agreement were in substance royalty and were liable to be excluded while computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964; (ii) Whether surtax payments made before filing the advance tax statement could be treated as advance tax or were merely ad hoc payments.
Issue (i): Whether amounts described as technical fees under the licence agreement were in substance royalty and were liable to be excluded while computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Analysis: The agreement showed that the assessee supplied technical data, designs, specifications and related services to enable manufacture, and the consideration was computed as a percentage of net invoiced value. The nomenclature used in the accounts was not decisive. On the substance of the arrangement, the receipts were consideration for the use of technical know-how and associated services and answered the description of royalty rather than a different kind of receipt.
Conclusion: The amounts termed technical fees were held to be royalty and were directed to be reduced while computing chargeable profits, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether surtax payments made before filing the advance tax statement could be treated as advance tax or were merely ad hoc payments.
Analysis: The payments were made before the relevant assessment year commenced, and the absence of a formal advance tax statement did not prevent them from being treated as advance tax. The assessment record also treated the payments as advance tax. The proposed ad hoc characterization was therefore not sustainable.
Conclusion: The payments were held to be advance tax and the direction to treat them as ad hoc was set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the merits and the assessments were restored as modified by the Tribunal's findings on the two substantive issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The substance of a receipt, not its label, determines whether it is royalty, and a payment made before the commencement of the assessment year can constitute advance tax even if a formal statement was not filed.
TaxTMI 
