- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Polyformalin (P.) Ltd.
Structured Summary of the Court's Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessee is a private limited company whose principal objects include manufacture and dealing in formaldehyde and related chemicals. The assessee entered into a collaboration and related agreements with Arborites Private Limited: a collaboration agreement dated 23 May 1975 for production of urea formaldehyde resin (initial term five years, renewable), a further agreement dated 28 May 1975 for transfer of plant and machinery at a fixed price of Rs. 1,00,000 and vacation of premises by Arborites, and a clarification dated 22 March 1978 stating that ownership of the technical know-how remained with Arborites and the assessee had use of it for five years subject to royalty.
Under the collaboration, Arborites transferred technical know-how and the right to use a trade mark, subject to confidentiality and transfer of further improvements. The consideration for using the technical know-how was a royalty calculated at the rate of Rs. 100 per ton of the contract product manufactured.
For assessment year 1976-77 (the first year of the arrangement), the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 34,779 paid as royalty as an item of revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim as capital expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) held that part of the royalty attributable to initial manufacture in the first year was capital in nature and the remainder (to be paid in subsequent years) was revenue in nature — effectively treating the 1976-77 amount as capital and later payments as revenue.
The Revenue referred questions to this court (including whether the royalty was revenue or capital and whether the amount of Rs. 34,779 should be attributed to capital and form part of cost of plant for depreciation and development rebate). This opinion concerns subsequent assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, where assessing authorities relied on the 1976-77 findings to treat royalty as capital, while appellate authorities treated it as revenue; the Tribunal confirmed the first appellate authority's orders mainly relying on its earlier findings for 1976-77.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the royalty/ payments made under the agreement are revenue expenditure or expenditure of a capital nature.
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a capital element in the royalty payment for assessment year 1976-77 — specifically, whether the amount of Rs. 34,779 should be attributed to capital expenditure and the royalty payable for the remaining four years should be considered revenue payment.
- Whether, if the expenditure is of a capital nature, the sum of Rs. 34,779 allocated towards capital would constitute the cost of plant and therefore attract appropriate depreciation and development rebate.
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Position
- The Revenue challenged the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 34,779 as revenue expenditure, contending that the payment was capital in nature.
- In the reference and subsequent appeals, the Revenue maintained that a capital element existed in the royalty payment for the first year and that the Tribunal's allocation of the first year's royalty to capital (and subsequent years to revenue) was a material question for decision.
Assessee's Position
- The assessee claimed the royalty payment of Rs. 34,779 for assessment year 1976-77 as revenue expenditure and sought deduction accordingly.
- The assessee's earlier litigation and this court's prior consideration for 1976-77 had argued that the royalty should be treated as revenue, and, where previous findings held otherwise, the assessee had been denied deduction and contended for appropriate relief.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.K. Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 38 (Supreme Court) | Referred to the principle from Assam Bengal Cement: If expenditure is made to acquire or bring into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business, it is capital; otherwise it is revenue. The aim and object of the expenditure determine its character; source or manner of payment is irrelevant. | The court relied on M.K. Brothers as authority for the settled legal test distinguishing capital from revenue expenditure and set out that test for application to the present facts. |
| Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) | Established the foundational test: expenditure for acquiring an enduring asset or advantage is capital; expenditure for running the business to produce profits is revenue. | Quoted and adopted as the governing principle for characterising the royalty expenditure in the case under consideration. |
| Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd., [1925] 10 TC 155 (HL) | Where expenditure is made, even periodically, with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, there is strong reason to treat it as capital. | The court cited the passage (as approved in later Indian decisions) to emphasise that payments made to obtain an enduring advantage are commonly capital in nature unless special circumstances dictate otherwise. |
| Cit, West Bengal II, Calcutta v. Coal Shipment (P) Ltd., [1971] 82 ITR 902 (SC) | Used as an approving citation for the Atherton principle (Lord Cave L.C.'s observations) regarding enduring benefit and capital treatment. | The court noted the Atherton passage was quoted with approval in this decision and treated it as part of the corpus of authority on the capital/revenue distinction. |
| Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) | Observation that disbursement for acquisition of a source of profit or income would ordinarily be capital expenditure in the absence of countervailing circumstances. | The court cited Empire Jute to reinforce the proposition that acquiring a source of profit generally points to capital character for the payment. |
| Polyformalin (P.) Ltd. v. Commr. Of Incometax, [1986] 161 ITR 36 (this court) | Earlier consideration by this court where similar royalty-type payments (e.g., for sole selling agency rights and acquisition of technical know-how/documentation) were treated as capital, and the assessee was held entitled to depreciation and development rebate; discussed Scientific Engineering House decision. | The court observed that in its earlier decision it had set out legal principles and, having found the expenditure to be capital in that instance, allowed depreciation and development rebate — but it also noted that in that decision the court had not applied the Supreme Court principles to the detailed facts before it. The present court relied on that analysis as part of background but found the earlier judgment had not resolved the factual question now before it. |
| Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC) | Deals with expenditure for acquisition of technical know-how (designs, drawings, charts, plans, processing data and literature) being of capital nature and capable of being treated as adding to cost of plant and machinery. | The court cited Scientific Engineering House to support the principle that documented technical know-how can be capital expenditure and treated as part of plant cost for depreciation; the court used this as part of the legal framework to be applied on remand. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded as follows:
- It framed the core issues succinctly: (a) whether the royalty payments were revenue or capital in nature and (b) if capital, whether the amount attributed to capital forms part of the cost of plant attracting depreciation and development rebate.
- It reviewed authoritative legal principles from the Supreme Court and earlier decisions of this court. Key principles stressed were: the character of expenditure depends on its aim and object (Assam Bengal; M.K. Brothers); expenditure made to acquire an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business is ordinarily capital (Atherton; Cit, West Bengal II); acquisition of a source of profit is, ordinarily, capital expenditure (Empire Jute); and expenditure for acquisition of technical know-how/documentation may be capital and add to cost of plant (Scientific Engineering House).
- The court examined its own earlier decision in Polyformalin (the assessee's prior litigation for 1976-77) and observed that while it had set out legal principles and indicated that the royalty in that instance was found to be capital, it had not applied the Supreme Court's principles to enter a factual finding on whether the expenditure in the present factual matrix was capital or revenue. The court noted the earlier decision expressly left open the character of future payments and declined to answer certain questions on that ground.
- Turning to the referred cases for assessment years 1977-78 through 1980-81, the court noted that the assessing authority and the Tribunal had largely followed the reasoning or findings from the 1976-77 proceedings rather than reconsidering the matter afresh in the light of the settled Supreme Court principles. The court found that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had not sufficiently considered the matter in light of those settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated in the court's earlier judgment for 1976-77.
- Because the Tribunal's reasoning had not applied the governing legal tests to the facts of the subsequent years, the court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to quash and set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the assessing authority for fresh decision applying the observations and principles summarized in the judgment.
- The court expressly declined to answer the referred question(s) on the merits in this reference, ordering remand instead and directing that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, for consequential orders.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the assessing authorities and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the referred assessment years and remitted the proceedings to the assessing authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The court further declined to answer the referred question(s).
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: the impugned orders treating royalty payments for the subsequent assessment years as capital (or otherwise) are set aside; the assessing authority must reconsider and determine whether the payments are capital or revenue in nature by applying the settled legal principles rehearsed in this judgment. If any amount is held to be capital, the assessing authority will have to consider whether it forms part of the cost of plant and whether depreciation and development rebate should be allowed.
- The court did not itself resolve the factual question whether the royalty payments for the subsequent years are capital or revenue; it sent the matter back for application of the legal tests. The court thereby made no new binding precedent on the specific factual allocation for these years beyond restating and applying existing legal principles.
- The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, for passing consequential orders following the remand.
Note: This summary is developed exclusively from the text of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts or arguments beyond what the opinion itself records.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G. Sivarajan, J.:— In these referred cases, two questions were referred for the decision of this court. They are as follows:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payments are in the nature of revenue expenditure?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the capital element in the payment would have been fully paid for by the payment made for the year 1976-77 and is not the above finding (or surmises) based on no material and perverse?”
2. The assessee is a private limited company having the main objects to manufacture, otherwise deal in formaldehyde, polyester/urea/phenol resin, pentaorythritol, hexemine and their derivatives including other organic and synthetic chemicals. The assessee entered into an agreement with Arborites Pvt. Ltd. company, which was functioning adjacent to the premises which carried on business of manufacture of urea formaldehyde resin. The agreement was entered into with the said company for the supply of technical know-how. The assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on May 23, 1975, with Arborites Private Limited for the production of urea formaldehyde resin. The term of the agreement was initially for a period of five years, but it was provided that the term can be extended subject to further agreement between the parties. As per the agreement, Arborites Private Limited transferred its technical know-how and the right to use the trade mark to the assessee. The assessee was required to keep the technical know-how in confidence. It was also provided that information about further improvements in the technical know-how was also agreed to be transferred to the assessee. In consideration of the transfer of the technical know-how, the assessee-company was to pay to Arborites Private Limited a royalty calculated at the rate of Rs. 100 per ton of the contract product manufactured. The assessee entered into a further agreement on May 28, 1975, with Arborites Pvt. Ltd. as per which the latter has transferred its plant and machinery to the assessee for a price fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 and vacated the rental premises occupied by it. A third agreement was entered into on March 22, 1978, purporting to be by way of clarification of the agreement dated May 23, 1975, which provided that there was no absolute transfer of the technical know-how, the ownership in respect of which continued with Arborites Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee was only entitled to the use of it for a period of five years on payment of royalty, as agreed to between the parties.
3. For the assessment year 1976-77, which is the first assessment year during which the aforesaid arrangement has been entered into, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 34,779 paid by way of royalty under the agreement as an item of revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the said claim holding that the expenditure was of a capital nature. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for deduction holding that the royalty paid constitutes revenue expenditure. On appeal by the Department, the Tribunal held that part of the payment of royalty under the agreement attributable to the initial manufacture would be capital in nature and the rest of the payments would be revenue in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the amount of royalty paid in the first year will be treated ascapital expenditure and the royalty to be paid in subsequent years will be revenue expenditure.
4. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 34,779 which represents royalty payment, was held to be of capital nature. This matter was taken up before this court in reference at the instance of the Revenue. The following two questions were referred to this court (at page 37 of 161 ITR):
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a capital element in the royalty payment and the amount of Rs. 34,779 which represented the royalty paid, relating to the assessment year 1976-77, should be attributed to such capital expenditure and the royalty payable for the remaining four years should be considered as revenue payment?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of Rs. 34,779 allocated towards capital, the same would go to constitute the cost of plant and, therefore, appropriate depreciation and development rebate should be allowed thereof?”
5. After setting out the facts of the case, this court posed the question thus (at page 39 of 161 ITR):
“Only two questions arose for decision and those questions are: (1) whether the royalty paid is a revenue expenditure or whether it is an expenditure of a capital nature, and (2) if of a capital nature, whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation and development rebate as part of the cost of its machinery and plant.”
6. With reference to the aforesaid question posed for consideration, this court proceeded to consider the legal principles applicable to decide the question as to whether a particular expenditure is of capital nature or of revenue nature. In that context, this court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 38. In that decision, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and observed at page 43 of the report as follows:
“As observed by this court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34, 45, if the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business it is properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital expenditure. If on the other hand, it is made not for the purpose of bringing into existence any such asset or advantage but for running the business or working it with a view to produce the profits it is a revenue expenditure. If any such asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business is thus acquired or brought into existence it would be immaterial whether the source of the payment was the capital or the income of the concern or whether the payment was made once and for all or was made periodically. The aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the expenditure whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The source or the manner of the payment would then be of no consequence.”
7. The Supreme Court in the said decision has also quoted the following observations of Lord Cave L.C in Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd., [1925] 10 TC 155 (HL) with approval at page 908 in Cit, West Bengal Ii, Calcutta v. Coal Shipment (P) Ltd., [1971] 82 ITR 902 (SC):
“But when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital.”
8. The observations of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 124 ITR 1 to the effect that if disbursement is made for acquisition of a source of profit or income, it would ordinarily, in the absence of any other countervailing circumstances, be in the nature of capital expenditure are also relevant in this context.
9. This court had also occasion to consider the nature of the royalty paid on acquisition of the sole selling agency right of McDowell and Co. by the assessee at the rate of Re. 1 per case of liquor sold. In that case, this court considering the nature of the payment held that the expenses incurred by way of royalty paid was of a capital nature. This court in the decision, in the case of the assessee itself in Polyformalin (P.) Ltd. v. Commr. Of Incometax, [1986] 161 ITR 36 referred to earlier had also considered the later decision of the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [1986] 157 ITR 86, which deals with the nature of expenditure incurred for acquisition of technical know-how by way of designs, drawings, charts, plans and other literature and held to be of capital nature, which would add to the cost of the plant and machinery and observed that the drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and other literature comprised in the documentation service will be a book falling within the definition of “plant”. This court after discussing the legal principles governing the situation, without considering the factual situation in the case, assumed the fact found by the Tribunal and observed as follows (page 41 of 161 ITR):
“As earlier observed, the question relates to the claim for deduction of the royalty paid as a revenue expenditure during the accounting period. Now, that we have found it is an expenditure of a capital nature, the assessee is not entitled to deduction of the same. The assessee will, however, be entitled to depreciation and development rebate as found by the Tribunal. The latter part of question No. 1 as to what will be the nature of such expenditure in future does not arise for decision in the present assessment proceedings.”
10. We do not find from the above observations of this court any consideration and finding as to whether the expenditure incurred in the case on hand would be of capital nature or of revenue nature by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and referred to in the said decision. Regarding the findings entered by the Tribunal as to the nature of royalty payment for the subsequent years, though the first question referred for the decision of this court took in the said aspect also, this court left open the question as to what will be the nature of such expenditure in future. This court further observed that the second part of the question relating to royalty does not arise for decision in the present assessment proceedings and, therefore, they declined to answer the same.
11. In these referred cases, we are concerned with subsequent assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. For these years also, the assessing authority relying on its finding for the assessment year 1976-77 held that royalty payment is of capital nature. But the appellate authority following its earlier decision for the assessment year 1976-77 held that royalty payment is of a revenue nature. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal by the Department confirmed the order of the first appellate authority mainly relying on the findings entered by the Tribunal in the appeal for the assessment year 1976-77.
12. We find that this court in the referred case for 1976-77 has set out the legal principles for determination as to the nature of a particular expenditure whether as capital or revenue. We also found that this court has neither considered nor entered a finding as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the expenditure can be said to be one of capital nature or revenue in character. We also found that the authorities and the Tribunal had also followed their decisions rendered for the year 1976-77 in these proceedings. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, according to us, has not considered the matter in the light of the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and set out in the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself for the year 1976-77.
13. In the above circumstances, we think that the appropriate course would be to set aside the orders passed by the authorities and by the Tribunal. We accordingly quash and set aside these orders and remit the proceedings to the assessing authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.
14. In view of the above, we decline to answer the question referred to us. We order accordingly.
15. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, for passing consequential orders.
Alert