ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. S.C. JOHNSON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4308/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 December 2017AY 2004-055 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid by the assessee constitutes acquisition of a business right, which is a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on this expenditure as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid a non-compete fee of Rs. 1,21,28,599/- to M/s Bayer India Ltd. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed depreciation on this non-compete fee.

What were the issues?

Whether the non-compete fee paid by the assessee is a capital expenditure eligible for depreciation, or a revenue expenditure. Whether the benefit of the non-compete covenant for a limited period should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii),Section 37(1),Section 55(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 4308/DEL/2011
C.O. NO.376/DEL/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This Appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee are directed against the assessment order dated 29.7.2011 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2004-05.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in directing the AO to allow depreciation on expenditure of Rs.

1,21,28,599/- being non-compete convenant fee paid by the assessee to M/s Bayer India Ltd. without appreciating the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The appellant craves to amend modify, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before

or during the hearing of this appeal.”

2.1 The Assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection:-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case

and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim that the expenditure incurred on non-compete fee for Rs.

1,21,28,599/- is a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Act.

2. That without prejudice to the Ground No. 1, the CIT(A) ought to have allowed 10/30th of Rs.

1,21,28,599/- paid on account of non-compete fee as the benefit of such non competition convenant is for a limited period of 30 months.

3.

That the respondent reserves its right to add,

alter, amend or withdraw any ground of objection either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2004, declaring total loss of Rs. 10,95,94,750/-. The assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 29.12.2006 and AO assessed the loss of Rs. 7,26,83,466/-. The AO has disallowed non-compete fee paid by the assessee and also disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 29.7.2011 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that assessee is entitled for depreciation on the non-compete fee paid to the seller. Against the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before us and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection.

4.

Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal

5.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal of the Cross Objection. 3

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the order of the Revenue Authorities. We find that the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Medicorp Technology India Ltd. (122 TTJ 394) and ACIT vs. Rea Image Tech. Pvt. Ltd. (120 TTJ 983) are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. In this case non compete fee sounds a negative. However, so far as the seller is concerned, he is selling his business right. Business right implies right to carry on any business in the market place. This is a recognized right. We note that the amendment to section 55(2)(a) by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from AY 2003-04 also recognized the right to carry on business as capital asset under the head capital gains. The seller in this agreement is voluntarily selling this right to the buyer. As a consequence of this agreement the seller has forfeited his right to conduct business in the territory for a period of 30 months. Therefore, the assessee in effect has acquired a right of the seller. Therefore, this particular payment as per the agreement falls within section 32(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as a result, the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the non-compete fee paid to the seller. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to calculate the depreciation accordingly, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee in their respective Appeal and Cross Objection.

7.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07/12/2017.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →