9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA 109/2008. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in wrongly assessing u/s 28(va)(a) of the Act capital compensation received by the appellant company in lieu of giving up inter alia their right under Press note 18m to debar the collaboration from carrying out business in India without the permission of the Indian joint venture partner. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts and in law in not considering that the ingredients of clause v(a) of Section 28 were not present in the impugned transaction and that the amount received was not a revenue receipts hit by the provisions of the aforesaid section. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not substantiating his perception that the appellant stopped carrying out any activity in relation to any business and erred in ignoring the business results achieved by the appellant post the agreement, thereby not proving the condition precedent for applying the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as per the foot note to the computation of income. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee's case fell within the scope of (va) of sec. 28 and the agreement signed by the assessee did not envisage transfer of any rights covered by the proviso to clause (va) of sec. 28 of the Act. The AO therefore, after recording reasons initiated proceedings under sec. 147 of the Act. The assessing officer completed assessment by treating the sum of Rs. 12,12,18,990/- chargeable to tax u/s 28(va) of the Act. 3. Before the CIT(A) it was submitted by the assessee that proceedings under sec. 147 could not be initiated on the reasons which are not based on any new information/material suggesting income escaping assessment, coming to the possession of the AO subsequent to expiry of time limit for scrutinizing the return of income for regular assessment under sec. 143(3) of the Act. It was also submitted that a reading of reasons recorded did not disclose whether the AO, in fact, had any material or information based upon which he had reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment. It was not the belief of the AO that is material but such a belief must be based on certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assuming valid jurisdiction under sec. 147 of the Act, notwithstanding that re-assessment proceedings have been initiated pursuant to completion of regular assessment under sec. 143(3) or processing of return under sec. 143(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that all the material facts including the entry into the joint venture settlement agreement were fully and truly disclosed by the assessee in the notes to audited accounts for the Financial Year ending on 31st March, 2004 as also in the notes appended to computation of income for Assessment Year 2004-05. Similarly the material facts relating to the position adopted for claiming deduction of delayed payment of employer's contribution to Provident Fund was also disclosed in the computation of income. Thus there was no new material that came to the knowledge of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2005-06 which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 that led to belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The aforesaid material/information was before the AO when the AO decided not to select the return of income for regular assessment u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f mind by the AO at the time of processing the return and hence question of change of opinion would not arise. The learned CIT-DR further submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Batra Bhatta Co. (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. In that case the reopening of assessment was made on the ground that the claim of the assessee required much deeper scrutiny. He further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee filed letter dated 27.11.2007 thereby giving details of joint venture settlement dated 10.04.2003 between the assessee and TE. In view of the agreement and resultant receipts the AO had reason to believe that receipts were taxable under the head "Profits & gains of business or profession" and hence income had escaped assessment. The learned CIT-DR relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Aggarwal v. CIT, 225 ITR 496, submitted that the findings in assessment for another year will constitute the material for reopening the case under sec. 147. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. What is required is "reason to believe" but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of the belief is within the realm of the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. As regards the contention of the assessee that all the material was available on record and therefore, reopening of assessment is based on re-appraisal of the material available on record, in this regard we would like to mention the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra) is relevant wherein it has been observed as under(Head Note):- "Under the first proviso to the newly substitute section 143(1) with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable on record. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, then no proceedings under sec. 147 can be initiated where return of income has been processed under sec. 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment. Hence the grounds relating to reopening of assessment are dismissed. 9. Next issue for consideration relates to upholding the action of the AO assessing the receipts under sec. 28(va)(a) of the Act. Facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee was incorporated on 3rd September, 1984 as a joint venture between Telemecanique Electrique SA (TE), a French company and Control & Switchgear Co. Ltd. (CS), an Indian company pursuant to a share holder agreement dated 22nd February, 1984 for manufacture of, inter alia, electrical equipments. Subsequent to incorporation, the assessee in order to establish the business of manufacturing electrical equipments, entered into the following agreements with TE:- (1) Agreement for Supply of Technical Information dated 28th November, 1984. (2) Agreement for Technical Services dated 28th November, 1984. (3) Name License Agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; The assessee would give its no objection permitting Schneider to carry on competing business through its wholly-owned subsidiary company in India and communicate the same to FIPB. (3) Schneider agreed to exit from the assessee company as joint venture partner; (4) The assessee agreed not to use Telemecanique as part of its corporate name; & (5) Both the parties agreed to put an end to all pending legal proceedings. 11. The Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of sec. 28(va)(a) inserted in the Statute with effect from 1.04.2003 which seeks to bring any sum whether received or receivable in cash or kind under an agreement for carrying out any activity in relation to any business was of the opinion that such receipts would be chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The AO noted that sub-clause (a) of clause (va) of sec. 28 has very wide connotation to bring in its purview the sum received by the assessee under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business. The amount received by the assessee therefore, fell within the ambit of sub-clause (a) of section 28(va). The AO also took note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to this, faced direct competition from them. This has resulted in impairing the profit earning apparatus of the assessee company. Therefore, the compensation for such impairment was a capital receipt since the receipt was not for transfer of any capital asset. 13. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer had wrongly held that the amount was received for not carrying out any activity in relation to business and therefore, the amount was chargeable to tax u/s 28(va)(a) of the Act. Further the AO was not correct in his conclusion that the assessee company did not have ownership of the capital assets, which was the right to use the trade names "Telemecanique" and "TE". The Name Licence Agreement specifically allowed the assessee company to use the trade names and the terms of Joint Venture Settlement Agreement also acknowledged the right to use such names till the Joint Venture Settlement agreement came into effect. Giving up right to use such trade names was "transfer" of capital asset as defined in sec. 2(47) of the Act. If the entire consideration is regarded as remuneration for agreeing not to use those trade names, the same would be taxable as capital gains. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logo trade mark, copy right and design relating to the artistic work with respect of its logo, commercial references or use any word, name, logo or copy right/design similar or likely to be confused with them. In consideration and full compensation of TC's commitments and other undertakings with this Agreement, a sum of Euro 2,229.700 was paid as 'TC Settlement Sum'. The learned CIT(A) further noted that from the perusal of the Joint Venture Settlement Agreement, it was evident that by entering into this agreement, the assessee company had agreed not to carry out any activity in relation to the business by using the "Telemecanique" as part of its corporate name and any other similar word or name which was deceptively similar or likely to be compared with them and thus, the present case got covered by the provisions of sec. 28(va)(a) of the Act. As regards the contention of the assessee that the consideration for ending joint venture and allowing SEIPL to operate in India and giving up the right to use the trade name was only a component of the composite agreement, the learned CIT(A) held that from the perusal of the agreement, it was clear that the dominant factor was the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 595, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the word "property" of any kind in sec. 2(14) of the Act was a word of the widest amplitude and the definition has re-emphasized this by the use of the words "of any kind". The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that any right which could be called "property" would be included in the definition of "capital asset". Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT 149 ITR 29, wherein the word "property" used in sec. 2(14) was held to be widest import and signified every possible interest which a person could acquire, hold and enjoy. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that tenancy right/right to continue in the possession of a property as a tenant, is a valuable right, which falls within the meaning of the term "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act. The aforesaid decision has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.P. Sandhu Bros., Chembur P. Ltd, 273 ITR 1 (SC). The learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on several other decisions to support his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to object to entry of Schneider in competing businesses in India was vested upon the assessee by virtue of the then prevailing legal regulations and was, thus, a self-generated asset, which was not acquired by the assessee through payment but which vested in the assessee by virtue of the legal regulations. Thus it was not possible to determine the cost of acquisition of the aforesaid valuable asset, viz., the right to object to entry of Schneider in competing business in India. Since the cost of acquisition of such asset was indeterminate, the compensation received against such asset was a capital receipt not liable to tax under the head "Capital gains" under sec. 45 read with sec. 48 of the Act. 20. It was further submitted that for the purpose of determining the cost of acquisition of certain self-generated assets u/s 48, provisions of sec. 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act can be applied only for those assets, which have been prescribed therein. The cost of acquisition of any asset which had not been prescribed u/s 55(2)(a)(ii) cannot be assumed to be 'Nil'. The capital asset in the nature of right to object, vested in terms of the prevailing Press Note 18, is not prescribed nor can by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on by the assessee was different than that carried along with the foreign joint venture partner inasmuch as new products were to be manufactured by using indigenous technology. As a result of exit of foreign joint venture collaborator, there was complete loss/sterilization of existing profit earning apparatus/business of the assessee carried on along with the foreign joint venture partner. Further, by allowing the foreign joint venture partner to enter into the competing business in India, there was damage to the business/profit earning apparatus of the assessee company by virtue of direct competition in such business with such joint venture partner. The aforesaid settlement agreement, therefore, resulted in immobilization, sterilization, destruction and loss of the existing profit earning apparatus/business of the assessee and the amount received to compensate the aforesaid loss of source of income/business was in the nature of capital receipt, which was not subject to tax under the provisions of the Act. The learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Vazir Sultan & Sons, 36 ITR 175 (SC). (ii) CIT v. Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still continuing in the said competing business of manufacturing electrical equipments, albeit in a varied form. The aforesaid compensation was received to obtain 'No Objection' from the assessee to allow entry of Schneider in competing business in India through its wholly owned subsidiary or otherwise. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee could not be said to be in the nature of non-compete fee covered under the provisions of sec. 28(va) of the Act. The learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT in the case of Govindbhai C. Patel v. DCIT, 36 SOT 270, wherein it was held that compensation received against undertaking not to sue the payer in Court of Law, was not in the nature of non-compete fee taxable under sec. 28(va) of the Act. In that case, the assessee company had received an amount of Rs. 2.93 crores from Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., which was shown as liability in the balance-sheet filed for the earlier previous years. Subsequently in pursuance of the understanding with Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. the aforesaid amount was agreed to be written back as not refundable in lieu of compensation/damages towards relinquishment of assessee's ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speeding up of essential indigenization of the company's product which had become necessary to mitigate the heavy cost of components imported from them. The foreign collaborator had been making attempts to do away with some of the existing agreements and understandings between the two Houses. It also mentioned that during the period of almost 4 years their engineers and other work force had become fully conversant with the technical know-how and other procedures and intricacies for the production, quality-control and testing etc. to be able to take up in their hands the task of complete manufacture of the product as efficiently as was being done by the foreign technicians deputed by the collaborators. The report further mentioned that it was never the intention of the assessee to depend on foreign technicians for all the time and the process of learning was expedited by the fact that the Indian engineers were found to be a complete match to the foreigners to imbibe the necessary skills and to successfully take up the required tasks independently in their hands in an extremely short period. Similarly in annual report for F.Y. 1991-92, it was stated - "There are dissensions between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that Para 7.1 of the JV Settlement Agreement dated 10.04.2003 provides that - "In consideration and full compensation for TC's commitments and other undertakings under this Agreement, a sum of Euro 2.229.700 (Euro two million two hundred twenty nine thousand seven hundred only) (the "TC Settlement Sum") shall be payable by SEI to TC subject to and strictly in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement towards the following: i. Settlement of all past present or future claims and potential claims made by TC to the Ministry of Commerce & Industry in the Government of India and satisfactory settlement of those matters, as set out in Section 4 above, and otherwise. ii. Change of corporate name by TC to "Controls & Switchgear Contractors Ltd." iii. On account of agency commission outstanding from SEI (amounting to Euro 25.600 (equivalent to FFR 167.837.55), without any interest." On the basis of above the learned CIT-DR submitted that the payment was received for settlement of past, present and future claims and change of corporate name and agency commission outstanding. He further submitted that the letter dated 24th April, 2003 addressed to Minis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same was rightly upheld by the CIT(A). The learned CIT-DR finally concluded that payment received by the assessee from its foreign collaborator in pursuance of Joint Venture agreement was revenue receipt and rightly taxed by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 28. In rejoinder the learned AR of the assessee submitted that it was not the case of assessee that the assessee was the owner of any capital asset in the form of patent or design or logo under dispute which was subject matter of transfer. The case of assessee was that the impugned compensation has been received against conveying "No Objection" giving up right to object to entry of Schneider in competing business in India, which was a valuable right vested in the assessee by virtue of foreign exchange regulation/Press Note 18 issued by FIPB. Therefore, the objections raised by the learned CIT-DR need to be ignored. 29. As regards legal right the learned AR of the assessee submitted that even at the time when Schneider incorporated a wholly owned company in India in the year 1995, the format prescribed seeking approval of FIPB contained a column under which the information relating to foreign collaboration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case, continued and had to ipso facto be terminated. With the collapse/coming to an end of the joint venture agreement, the allied agreements, co-terminus with the joint venture agreement, automatically came to an end. It was therefore, submitted that the compensation received was in nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. The same was not subject to tax on capital gains under sec. 45 read with sec. 48, in view of the cost of acquisition of said capital asset, which was vested in the assessee by law being indeterminable. The learned AR of the assessee further submitted that the remarks in the annual report for F.Y. 1988-89 were approximately 15 years prior to the subject Settlement Agreement. The aforesaid remarks do not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had imbibed all the technology, necessary for carrying on business. The foreign collaborator had provided exclusive licence to the assessee to manufacture and sell the licensed products, apart from continuous and unrestricted access to technology, as per clause 2(c) of the Technical Services Agreement. Further as per clause 2(d) of the said agreement, the assessee also had the right to ask for any technology developed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy earning apparatus etc. 32. The learned AR of the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT-DR had not advanced any argument on applicability of sec. 28(va)(a) of the Act. On facts on the contrary it is conceded that the assessee had not undertaken any negative covenant under the agreement. A fresh plea/argument has been taken that the assessee continuous to carry on same business post settlement, impugned compensation would be regarded as received in the ordinary course of business which shall be taxable as normal business income. He further submitted that it was not the case of lower authorities that impugned compensation was received in the ordinary course of business of the assessee. The bone of contention between the assessee and the lower authority was whether the same was received in lieu of undertaking the negative covenant of not using the foreign collaborator's name or conveying no objection to Schneider to carry on competing business in India. The learned AR of the assessee objected to the plea taken by the CIT-DR for the first time before the Tribunal because it changes the entire complexion of the case made out by the lower authorities and challenged in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d subsidiary company in India in the same field under automatic route. When FIPB granted approval on 31st August, 1994 to set up wholly owned subsidiary company in India, Press Note No. 18 of 1998 was not in existence. The assessee after issue of Press Note No. 18 of 1998 came into action and filed a complaint with FIPB stating therein that Schneider had incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary company in India in contravention of Press Note No.18 of 1998. From these facts it is clear that as on the date when FIPB granted approval to Schneider for incorporating a wholly owned subsidiary company to carry on competing business of manufacturing electrical equipments with that of joint venture, Press Note No. 18 of 1998 was not in existence. Therefore, question of obtaining no objection from the JV partner could not have arisen. The learned AR of the assessee however, led emphasis on the form to be filed by the foreign company for setting up a subsidiary wherein the information about existence of any joint venture was to be given. A copy of application filed by Schneider Electric Industries SAS before FIPB for setting of wholly owned subsidiary has not been placed on record and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of foreign/technical collaborators with previous joint ventures/tie-up in India. Sd/- (I. SRINIVAS) DIRECTOR New Delhi, dated the 14th December, 1998" On plain reading of Press Note No.18 one may find that it relates to foreign collaborators who had any previous joint venture or technology transfer/trade-mark agreement in the same or allied field in India. Such Investors of Technology were required to seek the FIPB/PAB approval route for joint ventures or the technology transfer agreements (including trade-mark). They were required to give detailed circumstances under which it was necessary to set-up a new joint venture/enter into new technology transfer (including trade-mark). Onus was on such investors/technology suppliers to provide the requisite justification as also proof to the satisfaction of FIPB/PAB that the new proposal would not in any way jeopardize the interests of the existing joint venture or technology/trade-mark partner or other stakeholders. The Press note 18 conferred sole discretion on FIPB/PAB to either approve the application with or without conditions or reject in toto duly recording the reasons for doing so. Thus from the language employed in Press ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Association of TC. SCHEDULE 2 (i) SLP 8352of 2002 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against an Order dated 6.3.2002 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in OMP No. 6 of 1989 filed by TC challenging the effect and scope of various arbitration agreements between TE and TC on the basis of which TE filed Reference for Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce. (ii) C.O. No. 22 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the alteration of name and address of TE to Schneider Electric Industries by Controller of Patents in respect of various Patents and Designs registered in the name of TE. (iii) A.I.D. No. 10 of 2000 before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court against registration of a Deed of Assignment by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta assigning various patents and design registered in the name of TE to the name of Schneider Electric Industries as the alleged assignee thereof." The above facts are corroborated from Joint Venture Agreement. The Joint Venture Settlement Agreement though mentions issue of letter by Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion in relation to activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /SEIPL on the grounds that;- (i) SEI obtained approval of the Government of India on August 31, 1994 to set up a wholly owned subsidiary in India; (ii) SEI has incorporated a company in India in 1995 under the name "Schneider Electric India Private Limited" to undertake, inter alia, the business of industrial control, automation and electrical distribution (iii) Schneider Electric India Private Limited" has acquired the assets and business of Crompton Greaves Ltd pertaining to its "Low Voltage Controlgear Division" or (iv) any other ground whatsoever in relation with the scope of business, activities or interests in India (present or future) of SE/SEI/SEIPL and/or their affiliates. TC shall simultaneously upon issue of the Letter of Credit by Societe Generale Bank as envisaged in Section 7 herein, deliver a No-objection letter to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry in the Government of India and, whenever reasonably required by SEI, assist SEI in satisfactory settlement of those matters with the said Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. The said No-objection letter shall be as per the draft annexed hereto as Schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther. The report also mentions about the application made by foreign collaborator to International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration. The assessee company had also initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court. Identical remark has been made in annual report for 1995-96. From the annual reports it is evident that assessee established itself not only production procedures and its intricacies but also in technical know how. The intension of the assessee from very beginning was to become technologically independent and was attained within the period of four years. The assessees who are dependent on foreign technical know how and on foreign technician would not have dared to snap the relationship like in the present case. The Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between the parties on 10th April, 2003. By the time the agreement was made the experience of engineers and other work force was of almost about 20 years and would have been of the level which could compete with the manufacture of products with any foreign technicians. Then the assessee filed application with FIPB complaining against setting up of wholly owned subsidiary competing with the joint venture company. At that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h plea for argument has been taken that since the assessee continues to carry on same business post settlement, the impugned compensation would be regarded as receipt in the ordinary course of business which shall be taxed as normal business income. The learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd., 208 ITR 740 for the proposition that additional plea which altogether changes the complexion of the case as originally brought before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Tribunal was not permissible to be raised at the stage of hearing. This contention of the assessee in our considered opinion is not correct. The issue before the Tribunal is the assessability of the compensation, whether it should be assessed as business income or amount received in lieu of undertaking negative covenants. As pointed out above the assessee and the foreign collaborator were in litigation for the last 15 years and in order to settle their disputes as mentioned in Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 of they entered into Joint Venture Agreement and amicably settled the issue. The issue for consideration is whether the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in our considered opinion supports the case of the Revenue because the learned CIT-DR has taken a legal issue and not an additional ground. The issue of assessability of compensation was before the AO as well as CIT(A). 38. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT, 131 ITR 451 has held as under:- "It is well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh, unless forbidden from doing so by statute." Therefore, the Tribunal has power to assess the income correctly. If income is assessable as business income, in our considered opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation should be assessed as revenue receipt liable to be assessed as business income. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Revenue could have taken the additional legal plea at any time for assessing the compensation received by the assessee. 39. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of C.C.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
