The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd

(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. Dinesh C. Vyas, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Ajit Shah and Mr. P.C. Tripathi for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . The Revenue is in appeal on the following question : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the sum of Rs.7,60,27,020/- representing royalty paid by M/s. Hindustan Lever was revenue expenditure?" . We may point out few facts. Hindustan Lever Chemicals Limited was subsidiary of Hindustan Lever. Hindustan Lever was owner of certain trade marks which Hindustan Lever pursuant to an agreement between two parties was allowed to commercially (-2-) exploit subject to terms and conditions therein including required by the agreement by Hindustan Lever. WE may also set out that initially no compensation was payable by assessee to Hindustan Lever for the use of the Mark. Subsequently by an agreement, royalty was fixed at 3% which continued to be paid which income was allowed by the A.O. The dispute inf act is at the stage when the assets of the subsidiary were taken over by Hindustan Lever. It was the contention of Revenue that at the time, the valuation was done of those assets the right in trade mark was also valued and according to A.O. this being in the nature of capital receipt was liable to tax. . The C.I.T. (A) and the tribunal after considering the agreement held that there was no transfer of any benefit of an enduring nature. Apart from that in respect of the contention raised by the Revenue that at the time of valuation rights in the trade mark were also assessed and valued, the same has been dealt with by the tribunal. The tribunal held considering the terms of the agreement that the assessee is not the sole licensee and the valuation done was based on the profitability projections of the business as a "going concern" and as such the receipt can not be considered as capital. Considering the terms of the agreement (-3-) which have been referred to and also which were brought to our attention, in our opinion, the reasoning of C.I.T. (A) and also I.T.A.T. cannot be faulted with. The question of law as framed therefore, does not arise. Even otherwise, it was not properly cast. In the light of that appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)