Case: C.I.T.,Ahmedabad Vs. M/S.Mastek Ltd

Assessee carries on the business of development of Software Package and Packaged Software Products divisible into four groups, namely, (i) Customized Software; (ii) Packaged Software Products; (iii) Agency Products; and (iv) Exports. In the lead matter, we are concerned with Assessment Year7 and with the Agency Products. In that year, assessee claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`Act, for short] in respect of royalty expenses of Rs.. The Assessing Officer held that, onlyh of the amount was allowable in view of Section 35AB of the Act and, accordingly, after allowing the benefit under Section 35AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of, which was added back to the income of the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which view was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [`Tribunal, for short] following its earlier decision in the assessees own case in I.T.A. No.4968/1995 and others dated 25th November, 1999. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department instituted Tax Appeal No.606 of 2008 in the High Court which, as stated hereinabove, refused to formulate the above proposed question, hence, these civil appealsDuring the year under consideration, the assessee claimed that it had paid royalty as below:In respect of the said payments, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made the said payments towards royalty for duplicating the software by the name `Ingres in India and supplying the same to the. According to the assessee, the ownership of the said software was retained by Ingres Corporation [which is an American basedl Company in United States]; that for each copy, which stood duplicated and sold to the customers in India, the assessee had paid royalty to the Corporation based on its sale value and, thus, such payment towards royalty formed part of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in making the sales.Before us, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the payment of royalty was for duplicating the software `Ingres in India and for supplying the same to the. In this connection, it was pointed out that there is a vital difference between payment of consideration for acquisition of a software and payment for acquisition of the right to use the said software. According to the assessee, in the former case, the payment would constitute capital expenditure whereas, in the latter case, it would constitute an expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.4. In the lead matter, which is civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.18545 of 2009, the facts are as under:Assessee carries on the business of development of Software Package and Packaged Software Products divisible into four groups, namely, (i) Customized Software; (ii) Packaged Software Products; (iii) Agency Products; and (iv) Exports. In the lead matter, we are concerned with Assessment Year7 and with the Agency Products. In that year, assessee claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`Act, for short] in respect of royalty expenses of Rs.. The Assessing Officer held that, onlyof the amount was allowable in view of Section 35AB of the Act and, accordingly, after allowing the benefit under Section 35AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of, which was added back to the income of the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which view was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [`Tribunal, for short] following its earlier decision in the assessees own case in I.T.A. No.4968/1995 and others dated 25th November, 1999. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department instituted Tax Appeal No.606 of 2008 in the High Court which, as stated hereinabove, refused to formulate the above proposed question, hence, these civil appealsg the year under consideration, the assessee claimed that it had paid royalty as below:In respect of the said payments, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made the said payments towards royalty for duplicating the software by the name `Ingres in India and supplying the same to the. According to the assessee, the ownership of the said software was retained by Ingres Corporation [which is an American basedl Company in United States]; that for each copy, which stood duplicated and sold to the customers in India, the assessee had paid royalty to the Corporation based on its sale value and, thus, such payment towards royalty formed part of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in making the sales.

Court's reasoning:
Keeping in mind the fact that none of thed aspects has been considered by the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court should have framed, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, the following question of law for determination:Whether allowance of royalty expenses, as claimed by the assessee, are to be allowed in its entirety under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or onlyh thereof, as mandated by Section 35AB(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are allowable during the relevant Assessment Years?Accordingly, we hereby remit these cases to the High Court for answering the above questionBefore concluding, we may clarify that we have highlighted some technical and legal aspects mentioned hereinabove only for the purpose of pointing out that applicability of Section 37s Section 35AB of the Act can be decided if there is a proper factual foundation on those aspects. Our reasons, mentioned above, should not be treated as conclusive. We are of the view that anh exercise needs to be carried out to understand the actual process undertaken by the assessee to be examined in the light of the contract/arrangement with the American Corporation [including the purchase order and the position of the royalty shared by the assessee and the said Corporation]Therefore, we have not examined the case on merits. Ourreasons given herein are only to support this Order remanding the case to the High Court. We leave contentions on both sides expressly open. If the High Court comes to the conclusion that further foundational facts are required to be examined, it may remit the case to the Authorities below, if it deems fit.6. At the outset, we may reiterate what we have stated earlier in so many judgements, namely, that the Department has to analyse the process undertaken by the assessee(s), analyse the contracts and the price structure to ascertain the nature of payment Depending upon the analysis of the process of duplication in the context of the contracts signed by the assessee with the American Corporation, one has to find out whether the expense incurred is a Revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. Moreover, one cannot proceed to decide such cases merely on the basis of the labels affixed to a given process. In this case, the assessee contends that it makes payment to the American Corporation in the United States for duplicating the software. Before coming to the dictionary meaning of the word Duplication, we may state that `Ingres, according to the Department, is a software which is a `Back-end System, which, in turn, is used to develop other softwares therefrom depending on the needs of the customers. In the present case, the customers of the assessee are Reliance Industries Limited, Anand Bazar Patrika, Air India, etc. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. The contract/arrangement between the assessee and the American Corporation in this case consists of two parts, namely, commercial and manufacture. From the said contract/ arrangement, it, prima facie, appears that the above customers are given direct access to the software `Ingres and, according to the Department, this is one reason why royalty is shared between the assessee and the American Corporation in the ratio of 60:40. According to the Department, such high ratio itself suggests that the impugned payment is not for duplication, simpliciter.7. According to the Dictionary of Computer by W.R. Spencer, a Database System [which is also called as `Database Management System] is an integrated software system that facilitates accessing, entering and deletion of data. According to the Dictionary of Computer by Prentice Halls, `Database Management System is a collection of software programmes designed to manage and maintain a collection of records [Database] by providing facilities for storing, organizing and retrieving related information, as and when required. According to the same Dictionary, `Duplicating is a process of copying from a source data medium to a destination data medium, which has the same physical form: for example, to copy a file from one magnetic tape to another magnetic tape is duplication. According to Microsofts Computer Dictionary, a Back-end processor is a processor that manipulates data sent to it from another processor: for example, a high speed graphic processor dedicated to painting images of a video display operates in response to commands passed back to it by the main processor. According to the same Dictionary, the part of a compiler that transforms the source code into object code is called Back-end. A Back-end processor is a slave processor that performs a specialized task, such as providing rapid access to a database, freeing the main processor for other work. Such function is called `Back-end because it is supporting to the computers main function.