PTD 1999

1999 PLP 3162 (PTD)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus WAVIN (INDIA) LTD.

Jurisdiction / Court
236 I T R 314
Decided Date
C. A. Nos.4912 of 1992 with 240 to 242 of 1986, decided on 3rd September, 1997.
Honorable Judges
Suhas C. Sen and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 3162 (PTD)
Forum / Court 236 I T R 314
Bench Members Suhas C. Sen and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ
Parties COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus WAVIN (INDIA) LTD.
Primary Law Income-tax
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3162 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3162 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the 236 I T R 314 bench comprising: Suhas C. Sen and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3162 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus WAVIN (INDIA) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income-tax

Representation

  • Ranbir Chandra, B. K. Prasad, Nagpal and P. Parmeshwaran, Advocates for Appellant.
  • Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated June 17, 1981 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos.681 of 1976, 927 and 928 of 1977).

Capital or revenue expenditure

Know-how

Collaboration agreement with foreign company

Research by foreign company relating to articles produced by assessee

Assessee contributing to cost of research

Assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and non-transferable right of user of technical information

Amount paid was deductible

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37: Held, that, in the instant case, the expenditure was incurred to obtain benefit of research and development made by the foreign company. The technical information given to the Indian company was "non-exclusive" and "non-transferable". In other words, this was not an out and out sale of technical know-how. The assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and non-transferable right of user of the technical information. The expenditure was deductible. CIT v. Wavin India Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 281 affirmed.

Judgment & Decree

(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated June 17, 1981 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos.681 of 1976, 927 and 928 of 1977).

Capital or revenue expenditure

Know-how

Collaboration agreement with foreign company

Research by foreign company relating to articles produced by assessee

Assessee contributing to cost of research

Assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and non-transferable right of user of technical information

Amount paid was deductible

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37: Held, that, in the instant case, the expenditure was incurred to obtain benefit of research and development made by the foreign company. The technical information given to the Indian company was "non-exclusive" and "non-transferable". In other words, this was not an out and out sale of technical know-how. The assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and non-transferable right of user of the technical information. The expenditure was deductible. CIT v. Wavin India Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 281 affirmed. Ranbir Chandra, B. K. Prasad, Nagpal and P. Parmeshwaran, Advocates for Appellant. Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and the High Court. We are in agreement with the reasons given by the High Court for holding the expenditure to be of revenue nature. The expenditure were incurred to obtain benefit or research and development made by the foreign company. The technical information given to the Indian company was "non-exclusive" and 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 non-transferable right of user of the technical information. Expenditures in these facts cannot be said to be for acquisition of any asset at all. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A./3303/FC Appeal dismissed.