TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 6 crores made by the appellant to M/s. BPL Limited was admissible as a valid business expenditure. He further erred in coming to the conclusion that the transaction between the appellant and M/s. BPL Limited was a sham transaction entered into for the purpose of claiming deductions wrongly." 2.1 The assessee is a part of BPL Group of Companies. During the year the assessee paid Rs. 600 lacs towards use of trade mark "BPL" to M/s. BPL Limited. The Assessing Officer held that 1/14th of such expenses is allowable in view of section 35A. Thus the Assessing Officer treated the expenses as capital in nature. Learned CIT(A) held that the transaction between the assessee and the BPL Limited is a sham transaction. Since the companies name itse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action to be sham, applied the provisions of section 35A. The Commissioner ought to have given a finding that the provisions of section 35A apply only to patents and copy rights and not to trademarks, and that further, for the provisions of section 35A to apply the amount spent must be capital in nature, i.e., an outright acquisition. The payment was neither a capital sum, nor was spent for the acquiring same is an admissible revenue expenditure, for permission to use the trademark for a limited period of ten years. 2.3 Learned D.R. Mr. Amitabh Kumar submitted that even without this arrangement the assessee was using the logo "BPL" in it correspondence etc. The name itself suggests that the word "BPL" is available to assessee even withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing demonstrated the transaction cannot be considered as sham. 3.2 If the assessee had not made the payment at all and used the trademark without the permission of the owner, this would have been a violation of section 29 of the 'Trades and Merchandise Marks Act. If the revenue were to consider that a disallowance is called for because the transactions are between closely connected parties, such a disallowance could have been made only of the excess paid over the fair market value payable in an arm's length transaction by invoking provision of section 40A(2). Revenue has not made out any case that in an arm's length transaction, the fair market value of the right to use the trademark for a period of ten years could be determ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee BPL Limited. If on the other hand M/s. BPL Limited had allowed the assessee to use the trademark free, than no tax would have been payable either by BPL Limited or by the assessee. Such a transaction of non-payment would in fact have been a sham transaction designed to avoid tax, as the transaction of payment of licence fee was beneficial to revenue. The CIT(A) therefore erred in coming to the conclusion that the transaction is an artificial device or a sham for the avoidance of tax, whereas the transaction in fact results in a higher tax liability for the group as a whole; this itself would go to prove that the transaction cannot be a sham. 3.3 It may be useful to refer the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was in CIT v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in AMCO Batteries case. In the said ease Hon'ble High Court has held that the dies and moulds used in the manufacture of plastic covers for batteries are entitled to higher depreciation though the assessee has not been selling the covers as such to anybody. In the present case also though some parts are used in manufacture of washing machine, vacuum cleaners, etc. yet these parts arc manufactured by assessee itself. These parts are admittedly rubber and plastic goods. Thus the moulds used in manufacture of such rubber and plastic goods are to be held as used in rubber and plastic goods factories. There need not be a separate and distinguishable factory for production of such items....