Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2 (2) , Chennai Versus M/s. Indian Additives Limited,

2016 (7) TMI 1095 - ITAT CHENNAI

Payment of royalty to USA company - nature of payment - Revenue expenditure or capital expenditure eligible for depreciation @25% - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) as relying on own order for earlier assessment years was well justified in treating the royalty payments made to M/s Chevron Oronite Company LLC USA as nothing but revenue expenditure, not resulting in any acquisition of intangible assets. The assessee could continue to use the technology even after the expiry of the period of payment of roy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: Shri. M. Viswanathan, C.A. ORDER PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in ITA No.155/CIT(A)-6/2014-15, dt 27.01.2016 for the assessment year 2010-2011 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in holding that royalty payments made by the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct that in the relied upon decision of the ITAT, in the ITAT's own observation the so called running royalty was for the purpose of use of licence, trade mark on technical information. With the amendment in the Act made before a decade allowing depreciation on the intangible assets like licence, trade mark etc, the payment can only be considered as capital in nature and not revenue in character. 2.5 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that since royalty falls under intangible assets as per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 23.09.2010 with total income of A66,31,49,630/- and was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to notice, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee appeared and filed details. The assessee during the financial year 2009-2010 entered into International transactions with Associate Enterprise (AE) situated outside India were the value exceed A15 crores. The ld. Assessing Officer made a refer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ownward adjustment of cost to A3,83,93,740/- and the ld. Assessing Officer made an TPO addition to the returned income alongwith other additions. The ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payments of Royalty to M/s. Chevron Oronite Company LLC, USA (COCL, USA) A6,85,80,000/- and claimed as revenue expenditure. The ld. Authorised Representative filed copy of agreement entered with COCL, USA in the assessment proceedings and the ld. Assessing Officer on perusal found that the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is fixed as lumpsum payable for infusion of new technology and other benefits and treated the said payment as intangible asset being eligible for depreciation . The ld. Assessing Officer relied on the Apex Court decision considering the stipulations in the agreement and provisions of Sec. 32 of the Act and the explanations on treatment as intangible assets. The ld. Authorised Representative brought to the knowledge of the ld. Assessing Officer, that similar issue was decided in favour of the ass .....

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 Sec.144C(1) of the Act made above two additions in Draft assessment order dated 07.03.2014 and served on the assessee under provisions of Sec. 144C(2) of the Act. The assessee company has option to file objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within thirty days from the date of receipt of assessment order u/s.144C(1) of the Act. The ld. Authorised Representative filed letter with ld. Assessing Officer after receipt of draft assessment order on 08.04.2014 mentioning that as against t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct dated 29.04.2014, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing proceedings. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considering the submissions dismissed the ground of the assessee on the disputed issue of TPO downward adjustment A3,83,93,740/- and on last ground, the ld. Commission .....

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 assessee s own case and held that the royalty paid to M/s. Chevron Oronite LLC is a revenue expenditure and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the Revenue has assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative reiterated that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering royalty payments made to M/s. Chevron Oronite Company LLC, USA in the nature of revenue expenditure and deleted relying 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

d therefore prayed for set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allow the appeal. 6. Contra, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee submitted on the transactions entered with M/s. Chevron Oronite Company LLC, USA and relied on the assessee s own case for the earlier assessment years in ITA No.2138/Mds/2008 and ITA Nos.700 to 702/Mds/2009 and the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and opposed to the grounds of the Department. 7. We heard the rival submissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case and allowed the appeal. The only contention of the Department before the Tribunal that the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and an appeal has already been filed in Hon ble High Court of Madras and the same is pending. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of appeal before Hon ble High Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. So, considering the decision of Co-ordinate Benc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as held by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal as under:- 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. We find that the same issue regarding royalty payment made to M/s COCL was considered by this Tribunal in the orders referred supra. It was held by this Tribunal at para 2.17 of its order dated 13th November, 2009, as under:- 2.17 In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the royalty payments shall be computed at a particular percentage of sales priced, and if there was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version