Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri B.L. Shah Versus ACIT

2016 (2) TMI 413 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Non-compete fees - whether classifiable under Section 17 of the Act as profits in lieu of salary? - AO observed that payment for noncompete fees with Grasim is only a camouflage - Held that:- In the present facts, the Assessing Officer in his order has after negativing the Appellant's claim is a non-compete fee held that the same is classifiable as profit in lieu of salary under Section 17 of the Act. This determination by the Assessing Officer was not a subject matter of challenge by the Appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 9th May, 2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 200203. 2 This appeal was admitted on 22nd August, 2008 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the amount received by the Appellant was not in the nature of noncompete fees is perverse and/or contrary to the ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A monthly pension of ₹ 3 lakhs per month for life, reimbursement of medical expenses for life etc. Besides, the above, in addition, the Appellant received an amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/which the Appellant claimed was noncompete fees and in support, relied upon an Agreement dated 31st March, 2002 entered into by the Appellant with Grasim; (c) The amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/was received by the Appellant prior to the execution of the Agreement dated 31st March, 2002 for noncompete fees .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sim had deducted Tax at Source (TDS) of ₹ 1,16,42,719/on the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/paid to the Appellant; (ii) Appellant continued as an Advisor with Grasim from 1st April, 2002 to 31st December, 2002 on payment of ₹ 3.53 lakhs per month. (f) On merits, the Assessment Order records that amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/claimed as noncompete fees was not a lumsum figure but an odd figure which was claimed to have been arrived after negotiations. In the result, the Appellant was c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he payment of Rs,3,80,48,100/was held to be not noncompete fees and was brought to tax under the head 'salary' and in particular, under Section 17(3)(ii) of the Act; (g) Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 31st March, 2005, the CIT(A) found that the amount aggregating to ₹ 3,80,48,100/was received in installment of ₹ 2.00 Crore on 30th October, 2001, ₹ 30 lakhs on 20th February, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay legitimate tax on it. It was further held that the Appellant had retired from Grasim at the age of 81, having got benefit of more than ₹ 95 lakhs from his employer with monthly pension of ₹ 3 lakhs for life, along with reimbursement of medical expenses. In these circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) held that it is highly unlikely that the person having put in such a long service with Grasim and granted generous postretirement benefit would do anything to compete with the busines .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in to consideration the following facts:S. (i) payment as noncompete fees of ₹ 3,80,48,100/was made much before the date of retirement and also before the date of agreement i.e. 31st March, 2002; (ii) the Appellant was 81 years old when he retired from the service. Therefore, was not in a position to compete with Grasim; (iii) ₹ 3,80,48,100/paid as noncompete fees was an odd figure and in spite of specific request, seeking a breakup of the same and / or manner in which the same was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,719/. This was accepted by the Appellant as there was no protest on the part of the Appellant with Grasim on the deduction of TDS in respect of the payment of ₹ 3,80,48,100/as noncompete fees; and (vi) The letter dated 29th October, 2001 - wherein Grasim has been directed by the Aditya Birla Group to make a payment of ₹ 2.00 Crore subject to tax deduction as applicable as advance against noncompete fees/ exgratia, other fees etc., payable to Appellant. Therefore, the payment made of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es is not taxable in the subject Assessment Year as settled by the order of the Supreme Court in Guffic Chem P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 332 ITR 602; (b) The impugned order of the Tribunal relies upon six circumstances as set out herein above to conclude that the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/received by the Appellant is not noncompete fees. All the six circumstances either individually or collectively, would not result in the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/being classified anything as other then noncompete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame if there is a breach of the Agreement on the part of the Appellant. 5 Per contra, Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue in support the impugned order of the Tribunal submits as under:( a) All the three authorities have independently rendered a finding of fact that the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/received by the Appellant is not a noncompete fee. This finding of fact was on the basis of the evidence placed before it. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse and/or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pect of Assessment Year 200203, then the same is not chargeable to tax. This issue stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Guffic Chem P. Ltd. (supra). The Revenue also does not dispute the aforesaid position in law. The only issue before us is whether the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/paid in terms of the agreement dated 31st March, 2002 can be said to be a payment made as noncompete fees. 7 It is a settled position in law that where the Authorities under the Act have determined a q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmissions keeping in mind the above broad test. 8 In the present facts, the Assessing Officer in his order dated 30th January, 2004 had held that the agreement dated 31st March, 2002 is not believable and the whole amount shown as payment for noncompete fees with Grasim is only a camouflage. This is particularly so in view of the failure of the Appellant to explain the manner in which the compensation arrived at an odd figure of ₹ 3,80,48,100/even when it is the case of the Appellant that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authorities have been relied upon to determine whether or not the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/is in fact a noncompete fee. In fact, the Appellant had claimed that an amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/was arrived at after negotiations. Thus, if it was so, the Appellant ought to have made available the breakup of the constituents of the odd figure of ₹ 3,80,48,100/as noncompete fees. This is particularly so, when it was specifically sought for by the Assessing Officer. Further, even before th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

undergo a change, depending upon timing of its receipt, cannot be disputed. However, in the normal course of business before any person agrees to pay such a large amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/as noncompete fees, it would ensure that the nature of obligation a person would not undertake and if done, would fall within the meaning of competition. This would have to be first determined and the terms set out and accepted by the parties in writing before any payment is made. Consequently, this also a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the basis that it referred to an advance of ₹ 2.00 Crore to be given by Grasim to the Appellant against noncompete fees, exgratia and other fees. It is submitted that on 29th October, 2001 i.e. when advance was directed to be paid, the payment of noncompete fees was under negotiation. In any case, it is submitted that the letter dated 29th October, 2001 is not determinative of the character of payment. We find that the advance of ₹ 2.00 Crore was an advance made not only against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment was for noncompete fees as claimed by the Appellant. 11 Mr. Murlidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant next submits that the impugned order has incorrectly relied upon the fact that Grasim had deducted the TDS on the payment of noncompete fees of ₹ 3,80,48,100/made to the Appellant. The Appellant accepted the TDS without any protest. This itself evidences the fact that the Appellant accepts the fact that payment is not for noncompete fees. However, the Appellant submits .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pete fees, is a reasonable and possible view. This view cannot be considered to be perverse in any way. 12 Mr. Murlidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant next points out that the impugned order relies upon the fact that the Appellant was 81 years of age at the time of retirement and thereafter, incorrectly concludes that he is unlikely to compete with his employer. Moreover, the impugned order records the fact that the Appellant was reappointed on the very next date i.e. 1st April, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

competitors. We understand. However, the fact is that in normal human conduct, where a person has worked with his employer for over 33 years and himself is over 80 years of age, has received a handsome retirement package, would not compete with his former employer. Thus, this conclusion of the Tribunal is a possible view and cannot be said to be perverse and/or arbitrary. 13 It was next submitted by the Appellant that the classification of the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/as salary must fail/fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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