COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW vs. BRITISH INDIA CORPN. LTD., KANPUR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1163/1974Supreme Court[1987] 2 S.C.R. 13303 February 1987Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. NATARAJAN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur, entered into an agreement with Charles Walker & Company, London. This agreement allowed the assessee to use registered trademarks and disclosed specialized tanning processes. A key clause stipulated that the assessee would appoint Textile and General Supplies, a nominee of Charles Walker, as its distributor for industrial leather in India and pay them Rs. 50,000 for initial expenses. This agreement was for seven years. Simultaneously, a separate agreement was made with Textile and General Supplies, but it did not mention the Rs. 50,000 payment. For assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed this Rs. 50,000 as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, deeming it capital expenditure. The High Court, however, allowed the deduction, holding it as revenue expenditure. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expenditure of Rs. 50,000 was revenue expenditure. The Court reasoned that the payment was an integral part of the consideration for acquiring the technical know-how from Charles Walker. Paragraph 7 of the agreement, which mandated the appointment of Textile and General Supplies as distributors and the payment of Rs. 50,000, was a necessary condition for obtaining the benefit of the specialized tanning processes and trade marks. The Court emphasized that no universal test can be laid down, and the aim and object of the expenditure are guiding factors. In this case, the aim was the acquisition of know-how. The distributorship arrangement was for a fixed period of seven years, contemporaneous with the technical know-how agreement, and the assessee had no relationship with the distributor post-expiry. Therefore, the payment was considered part of the price for acquiring technical know-how and not for creating a permanent asset. The High Court's decision was upheld, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 50,000 was a capital expenditure which could not be allowed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the payment of Rs. 50,000 was a revenue expenditure. They relied on the High Court's decision which held the payment to be revenue in nature. The assessee's claim was that this payment was necessary to secure the technical know-how and the distributorship arrangement, which were essential for their business operations. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the payment of Rs. 50,000 was in the nature of capital expenditure and therefore not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. They argued that the expenditure was for establishing a distributorship, which was a capital asset or advantage for the business. The Revenue's position was upheld by the Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

··t- i COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW. v. BRITISH INDIA CORPN. LTD., KANPUR. FEBRUARY 3, 1987 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1922-s.10(2)(XV)-Assessee Company- Entering into agreement with another company appointing its nominee A B as distributors of assessee's products-In lieu of benefit of technical knowledge assessee paid to the distributors for meeting initial expenses of C establishment of distributorship-Assessee claiming deduction- Payment whether capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.

The assessee-company entered into an agreement with M/s.

Charles Walker and Company, London which, inter alia, stipnlated that the latter wonld permit the nse by the assessee of a number of D registered trade marks specified in the agreement and disclose to the approved officers of the assessee the technique, practices and applica- · tion of specialised tanning processes. Paragraph 7 of the agreement provided that the assessee wonld appoint Textile and General Supplies, nominee of the Charles Walker, as its distributors for the sale of indus- trial leather manufactured by it in India and the assessee would pay E Rs.50,000 to th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →