Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1711 2015 SLD 1711 (2015) 372 ITR 481
Delhi High Court
IT Appeal Nos. 694, 696, 698 and 699 of 2011 and 625 & 633of 2012, FEBRUARY 3, 2015
SANJIV KHANNA AND V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Rohit Madan, P. Roy Chaudhury and Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates for the Appellant. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate , Ms. Kavita Jha and Vivek Bansal, Advocates for the
Respondent.

IT Appeal Nos. 694, 696, 698 and 699 of 2011 and 625 & 633 of 2012, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 Commissioner of Income TaxIVv.Hero Honda Motors Ltd.

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J. - This common decision/judgment would dispose of the present set of appeals filed by the Revenue relating to Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. These appeals impugned the order dated 16th April, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short). The substantial question of law required to be decided and admitted for hearing by order dated 20th April, 2012 reads as under:- 'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment made to Honda Motors Limited under the "know how" agreement dated 2.6.1995 is revenue expense and not partly or wholly capital expense?' 2. The respondent-assessee Hero Motocorp Limited, earlier known as Hero Honda Motors Limited, was a joint venture between the Hero Group and Honda Motorcycle Company Limited, Japan (Honda, for short) for manufacture and sale of motorcycle using technology licenced by Honda. The respondent-assessee and Honda had entered into a technical collaboration contract dated 24th January, 1984, which was revised by second and third supplementary agreements. These agreements were valid for a period of ten years. The respondent-assessee and Honda thereupon entered into another agreement dated 2nd June, 1995 called 'licence and technical assistance agreement' and we are concerned in the present appeals with the payments made under the said agreement and the question raised is whether royalty paid under the said agreement to Honda is wholly or partly capital expenditure. Another contention raised by the Revenue is that the model fee, which was separately payable under the agreement dated 2nd June, 1995 was capital expenditure. The third contention raised by the Revenue relates to payment of technical guidance fee and whether the same was capital expenditure. The last two items arise for consideration in Assessment Year 2000-01, but these aspects have not been raised in the appeals preferred for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 3. Before we critically examine the relevant clauses of the 'licence and technical assistance agreement' dated 2nd June, 1995, it would be punctilious to elucidate the difference between capital and…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register