New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 178 - ITAT KOLKATA

2016 (1) TMI 178 - ITAT KOLKATA - [2016] 45 ITR (Trib) 1 - Disallowance on account of write off of technical know- how - intangible asset was very much in existence as on 01.04.2004 - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- when an organization manufacturing a given product, incurs some expenditure on improvement of technology used in the manufacture of the said product, then, said expenditure shall constitute an expenditure incurred for better conduct of business and hence shall be revenue in na .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IT, Sr. DR For The Respondent: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata in Appeal No.276/CIT(A)-VI/07-08/C-6 dated 24.07.2008. Assessment was framed by Addl. CIT, Range-6, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for AY 2005-06 vide its order dated 30.11.2007. 2. The only issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

revenue expenditure whereas the assessee itself claimed depreciation over it for two consecutive assessment years. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee claimed deduction of technical knowhow relating to sliding nozzle refractories obtained from M/s. Krosaki Harima Corporation, Japan amounting to ₹ 53,51,012/- as revenue expenditure. The AO on perusal of records and submission of the assessee observed that the assessee has acquired intangible asset during FY 2002-03 relevant to AY .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t and claimed the entire amount as deduction while computing total income. According to AO, this is not allowable deduction and he disallowed the same by observing as under: Under the above circumstances when the assessee disclosed the above know-how under the block intangible asset as on 31.03.2004 and the same was existent as on 01.04.2004, as discussed above, the writing off of the balance WDV/unamortized amount of ₹ 53,51,012/- is not allowed and depreciation at the prescribed rate of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing in para 2.4 as under: 2.4. I have considered the submission of A/R of the appellant and finding of A.O. It is very much clear from the facts of case that entire expenses incurred on account of technical knowhow became obsolete and thereby written off. The technical knowhow fees incurred by the appellant did not bring into existence any asset and were incurred for gaining technical knowledge against payment of fees. The aforesaid expenditure was of revenue in nature and hence deductible in it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. In view of the above, accordingly, AO is directed to allow the claim of ₹ 53,51,012/- on account of write off of technical knowhow fee and depreciation of ₹ 10,09,625/- allowed shall be withdrawn. Accordingly, ground no. 4 is al1owed. Aggrieved, now revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Before us Ld. Sr. DR argued that the assessee has purchased/acquired technical know-how and in AY 2003-04 it has capitalized the asset and claimed 1/6th of such expenditure as an amortization of expens .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing of Specialized Refractories and Operating Systems used by producers of Iron & Steel. The assessee in pursuance to the technological up-gradation, entered into a technical assistance agreement with Krosaki Harima Corporation (KHC), by virtue of which, the assessee was granted a license to us .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of all export refractory products of SNR manufactured and sold by IFGL in overseas market. The assessee claimed to have realised in FY 2003-04, that Sec. 35AB of the Act was only applicable to assessment year commencing on or before 1.4.1998 and hence was not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, assessee erroneously claimed depreciation @ 25% on unamortized expenditure, which was shown under the head 'Fixed Assets' of the Balance Sheet. Finally in FY 2004-05 relevant to this AY 2005-06 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AO was not convinced and treated the expenditure as capital in nature. 8. We find from the facts of the case that initially company was of the view that the benefit, from such revenue expenditure incurred on account of such technology, would be available at least for three to five years and accordingly the assessee did not claim the entire expenditure in the same year and decided to claim 1/6th in the first year and defer the amortization of the rest to the succeeding years. However, in course o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te off of the unamortized portion as on 1.4.2004. We find that the AO added back the entire sum written off by the assessee and allowed only 50% of depreciation @ 25% of the total lump sum payment i.e ₹ 80,77,002/-. He further held that since the production began on 1.2.2005, the assessee was not entitled to depreciation in AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 also. From the above facts, it is clear that the amount was not written off on 1.4.2004 but was written off on 3l.3.2005, which was subsequent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clusive. The true nature of the expenditure can be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore let us now determine the true nature of the expenditure in the light of facts of the case and the legal position as argued by assessee. The first case law relied on by Ld. Counsel of the assessee is the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) where the Hon'ble Court while drawing a line between capital and revenue exp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration where expenditure is incurred while the business is going on and is not incurred either for extension of the business or for the substantial replacement of its equipment. Such expenditure can be looked at either from the point of view of what is acquired or from the point of view of what is the source from which the expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business it is proper .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hould be held to be revenue in nature. From the above, it is clear that an expenditure regardless of its source being capital or income, will be held to be on capital account if: (i) it is made for initial outlay or extension of business or a substantial replacement of the equipment or; (ii) it brings into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business We find that Hon ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure does not bring into existence an asset or advantage for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eement that" .... IFGL has been supplying their product of SNR into the major steel mills in lower price .... . Therefore, it is clear that with the new technology, the assessee was not producing a new product, rather the assessee was producing the same product but with improved technology. Thus, from the above it is clear that the expenditure on account of know-how was not in pursuance of a new line of business. Further, the said expenditure was not account of an initial outlay or extensio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her licensees also: This fact is evident from Clause 2 to Article 2 which reads as "KHC and its licensees can export or sell its products of SNR in India, upon the customer's request ". Further, even assessee as per Clause 1 to the Article 2 was entitled to non exclusively sell the products in the countries worldwide except Japan, Korea and Taiwan, like the other licensees were entitled to sell their products in India. The assessee did not have the right to sub-transfer the license .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or otherwise dispose of any of technical information furnished by KHC. It was further required to hold the information in strictest secrecy and to take all reasonable precautions to prevent any disclosure of the technical information. (Clause 1 to Article 13) (v) The assessee was required to pay a royalty calculated as 3% of the Net Sales Price of the products sold by the assessee in domestic market and 3% of the Net Sales Prices of all export refractory products of SNR manufactured and sold by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that transaction was not for acquisition of know-how, but for mere use of know-how. Had the transaction been on capital account, the AO would not have allowed the running royalty, as the same would have constituted consideration towards acquisition of know-how. (ii) Secondly, the technical know was at no point in time transferred absolutely in favour of the assessee. All the rights attached to ownership were still with KHC and had not been passed on to the assessee which was only given the righ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d trade mark of the Swiss company; it had merely access to the technical knowledge and experience in the pharmaceutical field which the Swiss company commanded. The assessee was on that account a mere licensee for a limited period of the technical knowledge of the Swiss company with the right to use the patents and trade mark of that company. The assessee acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw, for the purpose of carrying on its business as a manufacturer and dealer of pharmaceuti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uot;non-transferable". In other words, this is not an out and out sale of technical know-how. The assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and nontransferable right of user of the technical information. Expenditures in these facts cannot be said to be for acquisition of any asset at all." From the reading of the above two judgments, it is clear that expenditure on account of know-how can be capitalized only if the related know-how is transferred absolutely or exclusively in favour of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rer of SNR products, upon the technical knowledge of KHC. Further, by making the technology available, KHC did not part with any assets of its business, nor did the assessee acquire any asset or advantage of an enduring mature for the benefit of the business. Accordingly, by applying the principles laid out by Supreme Court in case of Ciba of India Ltd. supra & Wavin (India) Ltd. supra, we can safely infer that the expenditure incurred on account of technical know-how is revenue in nature an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ount of know-how was neither in pursuance of a new line of business nor did it bring into existence any asset of enduring nature. Further, our attention was invited to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC), whereby it is held that "The improvisation in the process and technology in some areas of the enterprise was supplemental to the existing business and there was no material to hold that it amounted to a new or fres .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version