Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4738 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Jt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1438 (SC)
REFERRED REI Aqro Ltd. v. DCIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2256 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2182 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1481 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1275 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Exide Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1321 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1388 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Narendra Doshi 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0496 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shivsagar Estate 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0101 (SC)
REFERRED Tips Cassettes & Record Co. v. Assistant CIT 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0097 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 1994 TaxPub(DT) 0436 (Cal-Trib)
REFERRED Super Cassettes Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1992 TaxPub(DT) 1232 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 TaxPub(DT) 1096 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. D. Mondal 1989 TaxPub(DT) 0344 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. 1986 TaxPub(DT) 0683 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. CIT 1984 TaxPub(DT) 0671 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0939 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0661 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. S. Zoraster & Co. 1982 TaxPub(DT) 0160 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1083 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Amalgamated Jambad Syndicate (P) Ltd. 1979 TaxPub(DT) 0328 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0591 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 1976 TaxPub(DT) 0652 (SC)
REFERRED J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT 1975 TaxPub(DT) 0345 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0469 (SC)
REFERRED Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0340 (SC)
REFERRED Motor Sales v. CIT 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0094 (All-HC)
REFERRED R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand v. CIT 1972 TaxPub(DT) 0433 (SC)
REFERRED Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0377 (SC)
REFERRED Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 1966 TaxPub(DT) 0242 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 1962 TaxPub(DT) 0307 (SC)
REFERRED K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom & Anr. v. CIT 1962 TaxPub(DT) 0237 (SC)
REFERRED Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1955 TaxPub(DT) 0073 (SC)
REFERRED Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT 1953 TaxPub(DT) 0120 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0819 (Kol-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 37(1)

Whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue must be decided in the larger context of business necessity or expediency. Since assessee's business itself consisted of reproducing and selling recorded music, royalty payment for purchase of original music, which formed the raw material, was an expenditure incurred out of business necessity just as a sugar manufacturer would require sugarcane as its raw material. The payment was so related to the conduct of assessee's business that it had to be regarded as integral part of profit earning process and not for acquisition of any asset or any right of a permanent character whatever the mode of payment might be. Accordingly, minimum guarantee royalty was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Capital or revenue expenditure - Payment of minimum guarantee royalty for purchasing right to reproduce film-music - Music formed the raw material for assessee engaged in manufacturing and sale of music cassettes, compact discs (CDs) etc. -

Assessee engaged in manufacturing and sale of music cassettes, compact discs (CDs) etc. entered into agreements with various producers etc. for purchasing right to reproduce film-music on payment of minimum guarantee royalty. AO held that assessee has acquired absolute right of production and sale of cassettes, compact disc etc. and minimum guarantee royalty was of capital in nature because this payment was one time contractual expenditure incurred for the purpose of acquiring absolute/monopoly right. Held: Whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue must be decided in the larger context of business necessity or expediency. Since assessee's business itself consisted of reproducing and selling recorded music, royalty payment for purchase of original music, which formed the raw material, was an expenditure incurred out of business necessity just as a sugar manufacturer would require sugarcane as its raw material. The payment was so related to the conduct of assessee's business that it had to be regarded as integral part of profit earning process and not for acquisition of any asset or any right of a permanent character whatever the mode of payment might be. Accordingly, minimum guarantee royalty was allowable as revenue expenditure.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 36(1)(vii)

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT