TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s order dated 25.03.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of revenue is as regard to the order of the CIT(A) deletion the addition made by the AO by holding the license fee as capital in nature. For this revenue has raised following ground No.1:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,99,37,347/- made by the AA on account of capitalization of license fee." 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of inter alia, marketing of Very small Apparatus terminals (VSATs) and providing satellite communication services thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the similar additions were made in A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2015-16 and the same were deleted by his predecessor's orders and the facts is noted by CIT(A) in paras 6.3.1. and 6.3.2 as under:- "6.3.1 In its submissions dated 11.04.2019, the AR of the appellant has submitted that:- "It may be pointed out that during the assessment year 2011-12 and 2013-14 similar addition was made by the assessing officer in the appellant's own case. Your Honor's predecessor has vide order dated 12.06.2017 and 20.10.2017 respectively deleted the disallowance of license fee made by the assessing officer. The AR of the appellant has also filed copies of the appellate orders for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14, which have been cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y dividing the license fee into two periods, i.e. before and after 31 July, 1999 and accordingly holding that the license fee paid or payable for the period upto 31 July 1999 i.e. the date set out in the Policy of 1999 should be treated as capital and the balance amount payable on or after the said date should be treated as revenue. We answer the said question in the negative, against the assesses and in favour of the Revenue for the following reasons: i. Reliance placed by the High Court on the decisions of this Court in Jonas Woodhead and Sons and Best and Co. (supra) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. (supra) as approved by this Court appear to be misplaced inasmuch as the said cases ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onditions, cannot be recharacterized. A single transaction cannot be split up, in an artificial manner into a capital payment and revenue payments by simply considering the mode of payment. Such a characterisation would be contrary to the settled position of law and decisions of this Court, which suggest that payment of an amount in instalments alone does not convert or change a capital payment into a revenue payment. iv. It is trite that where a transaction consists of payments in two parts, i.e., lump-sum payment made at the outset, followed up by periodic payments, the nature of the two payments would be distinct only when the periodic payments have no nexus with the original obligation of the assesse. However, in the present ca....