Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Accreditation does not allow the accredited product to use, or have a right to use, a trademark, nor any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience – or, for that purpose, use or right to use of anything falling in any other category of clause (a). An accreditation or approval by a reputed body may give certain comfort level to the end users of the product, and thus may constitute a USP (i.e. unique selling proposition) to that extent, but it may also be, therefore, used for the purposes of marketing of the products, but, legally speaking, the payment made for such an accreditation is not covered the definition of ‘royalty’ as set out in Article 13(3) of India UK tax treaty.
Learned Departmental Representative’s argument is that in substance the payment for BDHS accreditation is nothing but a royalty to use their name for marketing, and, therefore, this payment should be treated as a payment of royalty. We see no substance in this simplistic plea. When an expression has been defined in law, and the impugned payment is not covered by such a specific definition, it cannot be open to us to look at normal connotations of this expression in business parlance. Simply because assessee is benefited by this accreditation, and the assessee uses the same for its marketing purposes, the character of payment cannot be classified as ‘royalty’. The expression ‘royalty’ is neatly defined under Article 13(3) of Indo UK tax treaty, and unless the payment fits into the description set out in Article 13(3), it cannot be termed as ‘royalty’ for the purposes of examining its tax ability under the tax treaty.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI A BENCH, MUMBAI
ITA No. 7164/Mum/2008
Assessment year: 2004- 05
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
