The decision in CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Pvt. Ltd. (2012) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that clarified the scope and interpretation of Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dealing with amortisation of expenditure incurred for acquiring know-how. This case remains one of the most cited authorities on distinguishing capital expenditure, revenue expenditure, and the proper manner of claiming deductions when a technical collaboration agreement involves transfer or use of technical know-how. The Court’s reasoning plays a significant role in shaping the tax treatment of industrial technology, licensing agreements, and business modernization expenses across Indian industries.
Background & Facts of the Case
Ramaraju Surgical Pvt. Ltd. was an industrial manufacturer engaged in producing surgical cotton and related products. To modernize its operations and improve efficiency, the assessee entered into a technical collaboration agreement with a foreign company. Under this agreement, the assessee received:
- Technical know-how
- Confidential operational processes
- Manufacturing techniques
- Assistance in implementing new technology
- Upgradation support
In consideration for this, Ramaraju Surgical paid a substantial lump-sum amount. The assessee claimed this expenditure as deductible under Section 35AB, which provides amortisation of expenditure incurred for acquiring know-how, spread over six years.
However, the Assessing Officer denied the claim, arguing:
- The assessee did not purchase know-how but only obtained a right to use it.
- Section 35AB applies only when know-how is acquired, not when it is merely licensed.
- The payment should be treated as capital expenditure without eligibility for amortisation.
The assessee appealed, and the dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The key issues were:
1. What constitutes “acquisition” of know-how under Section 35AB?
Does obtaining the right to use know-how amount to acquiring it?
2. Whether lump-sum technical collaboration fees qualify for amortisation under Section 35AB?
3. Should the expenditure be treated as capital or revenue in nature?
This required the Court to apply long-standing principles from earlier decisions such as Jonas Woodhead and Alembic Chemical Works.
Also Read: K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) – Detailed Case Analysis
Court’s Analysis & Reasoning
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 35AB, its legislative history, and the nature of technical know-how agreements.
Interpretation of “Acquisition” in Section 35AB
The Court held that “acquisition” does not necessarily mean absolute ownership. Acquisition may include:
- Obtaining exclusive or non-exclusive rights
- Access to technology with permission to use
- Right to apply technical information in manufacturing
Thus, even limited rights granted under a collaboration agreement constitute acquisition for the purpose of Section 35AB.
Tip: “In taxation, substance prevails over form—courts examine the real nature of rights, not the literal wording of agreements.”
Nature of the Expenditure
The Court clarified:
- Technical know-how is an intangible asset.
- Payments made to obtain such know-how generally constitute capital expenditure.
- But Section 35AB is a special provision allowing amortisation, regardless of whether the assessee becomes full owner.
Purpose of Section 35AB
The Court emphasized that Section 35AB was introduced to encourage technological advancement. The provision intended to offer relief even when know-how is licensed, provided:
- The assessee incurs expenditure for acquiring access to know-how.
- The know-how is used for the purposes of business.
Thus, the Assessing Officer’s narrow interpretation was rejected.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
1. Know-How Need Not Be Permanently Transferred
The Court held that technical know-how is rarely transferred absolutely, due to confidentiality and commercial reasons. Most agreements allow limited use, yet require heavy payments. These payments still qualify under Section 35AB.
2. Payment Structure Is Irrelevant
Whether the assessee pays:
- Lump-sum
- Instalments
- Royalty
- Mixed consideration
It does not change the applicability of Section 35AB, as long as the payment is for know-how.
3. Amortisation Is Mandatory for Eligible Expenditure
If expenditure falls within Section 35AB, it must be amortised over six years.
The assessee cannot choose to claim it fully in one year.
4. Commercial Expediency Is Not Relevant Here
Unlike Section 37(1), where commercial expediency is a factor, Section 35AB allows deduction strictly according to statutory formula.
Tip: “When a special provision applies (like Section 35AB), it overrides general deduction provisions such as Section 37(1).”
5. Distinction Between Capital & Revenue Is Secondary
Once expenditure fits within Section 35AB, it is automatically treated as capital, eligible for statutory amortisation.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that:
- The assessee acquired technical know-how within the meaning of Section 35AB.
- Lump-sum payment qualifies for amortisation under Section 35AB.
- The Assessing Officer erred in treating the agreement as a mere licence without transfer.
- Deduction must be spread over six years as per statute.
Thus, Ramaraju Surgical was entitled to amortisation of the expenditure incurred.
Impact of the Judgment
The case has significant implications on taxation of technical collaboration agreements:
1. Broader Interpretation of “Acquisition”
After this decision, even limited or temporary rights in know-how are treated as acquisition for tax purposes.
2. Certainty in Tax Treatment
Businesses entering into technical agreements can confidently amortise expenditure, improving financial planning.
3. Encouragement to Technological Upgradation
The judgment aligns with legislative intent to support industrial innovation.
4. Clarifies Interaction Between Sections 35AB and 37
It established that:
- If Section 35AB applies → deduction must be under Section 35AB only.
- Expenditure cannot be claimed under Section 37(1).
Tip: “Always analyse whether a specific deduction provision applies before invoking the general deduction under Section 37.”
5. Relevance to Intangible Assets & IPR Agreements
The decision is frequently invoked in cases relating to:
- Software licensing
- Patents
- Technology transfer
- Franchise agreements
- Industrial process sharing
Conclusion
CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Pvt. Ltd. (2012) remains a foundational precedent on the taxation of technical know-how agreements. By broadly interpreting “acquisition” and reinforcing the applicability of Section 35AB, the Supreme Court ensured certainty, fairness, and alignment with India’s industrial policy. For law students and professionals, this case is crucial for understanding how special deduction provisions override general principles and how the judiciary interprets complex business expenditures within the Income Tax Act.
Also Read: How to Choose Between Corporate Law and Litigation in 2025