Commissioner of Income Tax vs Asoka Betalnut Co. (P) Ltd.

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.

The question referred to us u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') at the instance of the revenue in relation

to the assessment year of the assessee 1983-84 is as under :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty paid to the director as a proprietor of the trade mark could be treated as a

benefit derived by a director within the meaning of section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

The short facts are that the assessee-company paid royalty of a sum of Rs. 1,68,758 to the directors and the Income Tax Officer treated the

sum paid as remuneration and disallowed the same u/s 40(c) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal, following his own order for the

assessment year 1982-83 held that the royalty payment cannot be treated as remuneration and deleted the disallowance which was confirmed by

the Tribunal. It is against this order that the present reference is being made at the instance of the revenue.

The learned counsels appearing for both the parties have fairly submitted that the reference for the earlier year 1982-83 came for consideration

before this court and this court has held that the payment of royalty was paid to the directors not in the capacity of directors but as a proprietor of

the trade mark and it cannot be treated as benefit which can be disallowed u/s 40(c). We also find that the Supreme Court has taken a similar view

in the case of Bharat Beedi Works (Pvt.) Ltd. and another etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein the Supreme Court has held that so

long as the remuneration, i.e., payments were not made in the capacity of directors as directors, the payments do not fall u/s 40(c). Here it was

specifically found that the trade mark belongs to the directors and they were the proprietors and the royalty was paid not in the capacity of director

but as a proprietor of the trade mark and, hence, section 40(c) does not apply to the facts of the case. Moreover, it is not also the case of the

revenue that the payments were made as a device or as a screen to cover the payments by way of remuneration. We, therefore, hold that the

Tribunal was right in holding that royalty paid to the directors is not to be taken into account for the purpose of section 40(c).

Therefore, the question of law if answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances, there will be no

order as to costs.