Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (11) TMI 198 - ITAT DELHI-CChargeable As Tax - compensation payment - Nature of receipt - capital receipt or revenue - commercial arrangement - business of manufacture and sale of writing instruments - Whether compensation paid to the assessees was a capital receipt not liable to tax - payment made to compensate the Jain Group for losing the benefits of future profits of LWIL or being exposed to enhanced losses of LWIL through the introduction of Newell - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the cases before us that members of Jain group were carrying on business of sale and purchase of writing material as per details noted above. The facts relating to the business carried have been correctly stated by the learned representative of the assessee. The learned D.R. did not raise much dispute on them. There is further no dispute that on19-3-1996, Jain Group entered into JVA with GIPL. According to Jain Group, the JVA was an isolated agreement of unique type never entered into by Jain Group earlier with any body. Revenue has contested this proposition and accordingly it has been held that JVA was a business and commercial agreement and, therefore, compensation flowing from breach of such agreement is also a business/revenue receipt liable to be taxed. In our considered opinion, it has to be accepted that JVA was an isolated agreement entered into by Jain Group for the first time and it cannot be accepted that Jain Group was carrying on business of entering into such JVAs. It is not possible to accept on facts that Jain Group were entering into agreements with world renowned companies like Gilliete in the ordinary course of their business. It was an agreement entered into by Jain Group for purposes of business. JVA was a commercial deal providing respective rights and liabilities of parties relating to business agreed to be carried but it was not a "business". JVA may not merely be a memorandum of agreement not connected with the business as contended by the assessee. It was a commercial agreement. But it was not "business". We hold accordingly. Whether JVA here is a capital asset or a revenue asset - It is admitted even by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that parties, as per the JVA agreed to establish, develop, long-term business alliances to strengthenLuxorgroup and world renowned Gillette group. Under the agreement, business of manufacture and sale of writing instrument and stationeries was to be carried by exclusive vehicle of joint venture (LWIL etc.) companies. The joint venture companies in business was to follow "Gillette's management, financial, personal, manufacturing, internal control, reporting system, policies, practices, procedures and were to be guided by Gillette's mission and value statement". Products of Gillette were to be manufactured and sold exclusively by Joint venture company. Gillette could not sell its products in competition. The parties under the agreement could not agree to sell, transfer any of shares in company for first seven years without prior written consent of the other party and any such sale or transfer of shares would constitute material breach of JVA. The joint venture agreement further provided for blending of two concerns and stated terms and conditions in respect of financing of joint venture business, insurance of shares, constitution of Boards, management, accounting, technical know, assistance, consequences of termination of agreement, material breach etc. etc. Admittedly, it is very voluminous and lengthy document. Revenue also admits that it is very comprehensive. In our considered opinion, the terms and conditions leave no amount of doubt that JVA was a structure or foundation on which the joint business was to be built and carried. It provided mechanism or blue prints and defined role of the parties to the agreement and their commitment and also the manner in which business would be carried. The JVA could not be treated as "business" as admittedly business agreed to be carried was that of manufacture and sale of writing material and stationery. As noted in the case of Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, it was capital asset invested in the business but not business itself. It was clearly a capital structure having two shades, one of Jain group and other of Gillette both having committed to provide not only finances but also management skill and even culture etc. etc. It could not be treated as stock-in-trade or a revenue asset. It was a capital asset. Having reached the conclusion that JVA gave rise to rights which were capital in nature now the question whether compensation received for breach of above rights or waiver of such rights is revenue receipt or capital receipt is not difficult to decide. It is an admitted position that compensation was paid to Jain group for breach of commitment provided in JVA. It has also been observed that compensation was paid for loss of future profit or to reduce the future losses which the joint venture companies suffered or were likely to suffer. Documents referred to above make no reference to future profit or future losses and, therefore, it is not possible to enter into realm of actual losses or actual profit suffered in the joint venture. Parties to JVA or even revenue authorities did not take actual assessments of joint venture companies into account in the impugned orders. There is no such indication on record. Even compensation paid has no reference to profit or gain actually earned by the parties. It was open to the revenue to show that written agreements placed by the assessee on record were not reliable or acted upon and that compensation was paid for something else. But no case on lines above has been made out. No statement of parties to agreement was recorded nor any other material was collected to show that compensation was for any revenue loss caused to the assessees. In this background we see no reason to admit additional evidence filed on behalf of the assessees. We, further see no reason for holding that compensation received was a capital receipt not liable to tax. It is further clear from notice and waiver agreement that compensation was paid to Jain group for waiving their rights and for permitting Gillette to leave joint venture in breach of JVA. In the light of above, it is not possible to attribute compensation to anything else. There is direct reference to loss or damage caused to the trading structure on account of departure of Gillette. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee. We may state that the matter is fully covered by the decision of House of Lords and by the decision in the case of "Hotel Oberoi"[1999 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT].Thus, we hold that compensation paid to the assessees was a capital receipt not liable to tax. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas those of the revenue are dismissed.
|