GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1267 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (10) TMI 1267 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Non-compete fees paid - whether CIT(A) legally erred in not considering the non-compete fees as an intangible asset (capital expenditure) and not allowing the depreciation for the current year as well as consequential effect for the future years u/s.32(1)(ii) ? - Held that:- Applying the proposition of law laid down in the case of Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 968 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and other High Courts/Tribunal, we hold that non-compete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year 2009-10, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act, wherein following grounds have been taken by the assessee :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) legally erred in not considering the non-compete fees paid of ₹ 2,03,60,737/- as an intangible asset (capital expenditure) and thereby further erred in not allowing the depreciation for the current year as well as consequential effect for the future years u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Reliance is pla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the previous year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income at a loss of ₹ 2.52 crores. In this year, the assessee company paid non-compete fees amounting to ₹ 2,06,55,000/- to the erstwhile promoters of the company to ward off any competition in the manufacture of gases (in the field of CO2 and organ) from companies manufacturing such gases from the erstwhile promoters in this part of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 2,94,263/- in the profit and loss account. The AO did not agree with the assessee s contention and disallowed the assessee s claim of revenue expenditure and only allowed the amount of ₹ 2,94,263/- amortised in the profit and loss account. 3. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The additional ground was raised by the assessee to the effect that assessee should be allowed the expenditure as revenu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gases. During the year on account of the non-compete agreement with the original promoter of the company the present management paid a sum of ₹ 2,06,55,000/-. In the books of account the same was treated as deferred revenue expenditure, and debited a sum of ₹ 2,94,263/- but in computation of income, the entire sum of ₹ 2,06,55,000/- was claimed as deduction. The non-compete fee was paid for noncompeting with the assessee for a period of five years. The issue under consideratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom Mr. Kapadia for a long time in future or forever so as to hold that benefit of enduring nature is received from such payment. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that exit of Mr. Kapadia would have immediate impact on the business of the assessee-company and in order to protect the business interest the assessee had paid the said amount to ward off the competition. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of facts and therefore, first question cannot be entertained. 6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n perusal of facts as recorded by the A.O. and ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee had paid non-compete fee to its Ex-Managing Director for restricting him to share his expertise or to join any other company in a similar line of business of chemicals for a period of three years on a consideration of ₹ 154.20 lakhs. Since the agreement for restrictive covenant was only for the period of three years to wardoff a potential threat or completion, we are of the opinion that, there can no quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is for enduring character and hence, can be termed as Capital Expenditure . Relying on the same judgment, the Hon ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Late G.Naidu & others, 165 ITR 63 (Mad), held that if the restrictive covenant given in the non-compete agreement is for a period of 5 years, then it is on revenue account. This proposition has been retreated by the same High Court in Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Tax appeal no. 244 0f 2006, order dated 10.09.2012 in detail after analyzing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Late G. D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63 . The annual report also treated this as deferred revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer being satisfied allowed only ₹ 20 lakhs and rejected ₹ 80 lakhs in terms of his order. The Appellate Commissioner, on challenge, held in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal would hold against the Revenue in the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the allowance of the entire amount by the appellat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 20 lakhs spent by the company amounts to expenditure, then how can they question the remaining ₹ 80 lakhs in terms of the proceedings. The law is the same whether it is ₹ 20 lakhs or ₹ 80 lakhs. In these circumstances, and in the light of the acceptance of ₹ 20 lakhs as expenditure, we deem it proper to answer this question of law in favour of the assessee. 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 302 ITR 249 (D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

12-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version