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, Special Range 16 (2) , Mumbai

Non-compete fees - treatment to the receipt - taxation effect - Held that:- The finding of the Tribunal that the amount received by the Appellant was not in the nature of non-compete fees is not perverse as that amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/claimed as non-compete 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 called upon to give details of the components of ₹ 3,80,48,100/claimed as non-compete 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

salary' and in particular, under Section 17(3)(ii) of the Act - Decided in favour of the Revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 910 of 2007 - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. R.Murlidharan with Mr. A. K. Jasani For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Mr. Arun Nagarjun and Mr. Arun Kumar Bagul, i/b. Ms. Anuradha Mane JUDGMENT ( Per M. S. Sanklecha J. ) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the written submissions made by the Appellant? . 3. Briefly, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under: (a) On 31st March, 2002, the Appellant at the age of 81 years, retired from employment with M/s. Grasim Limited (Grasim). This was after having worked for over 33 years with Grasim; (b) At the time of retirement, the Appellant received retirement benefits of more than ₹ 95 lakhs from Grasim. A monthly pension of ₹ 3 lakhs per month for life, reimbursement of medical ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/ 2 20.02.2002 30,00,000/ 3 27.03.2002 1,50,48,100/ Total: 3,80,48,100/ (d) In its return of income for the subject Assessment Year, the Appellant claimed that the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/received by him as non-compete fees from Grasim was not taxable; (e) The Assessing Officer in his Assessment Order dated 30th January, 2004 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act noted the following further facts: (i) Grasim had deducted Tax at Source (TDS) of ₹ 1,16,42,719/on the amount 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

compete fees. The Appellant failed to furnish the details. Thus taking into account all the facts, the Assessing Officer concluded that the payment of ₹ 3,80,48,100/claimed as non-compete fees was not in fact so. Further, he held that the agreement dated 31st March, 2002 is a subterfuge to colour an amount received in lieu of salary as a non-compete fees so as not to pay tax on the same. In the circumstances, the payment of Rs,3,80,48,100/was held to be not non-compete fees and was brought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed prior to date of Agreement dated 31st March, 2002. It further records that the payment of ₹ 2.00 Crorewas made on 30th October, 2001 was in fact an advance against non-compete fees/ exgratia, fees etc. Thus, he concluded that theagreement dated 31st March, 2002 indicating non-compete fees is the document which has been entered into so as to only hide the real nature of transaction. All this with a view to not pay legitimate tax on it. It was further held that the Appellant had retired f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 31st March, 2005 upheld the order dated 30th January, 2004 of the Assessing Officer and held that the payment of ₹ 3,80,48,100/claimed as non-compete fees is, in fact, classifiable under Section 17 of the Act as profits in lieu of salary; and (h) Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 2005 of the CIT(A), the Appellant carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order took in to consideration the following facts: (i) payment as non-compete fees 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

ted as an advisor to Grasim w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 for a period of nine months i.e. up to 31st December, 2002. Thus, he continued to work for Grasim not only after the receipt of non-compete fees, date of his retirement and after the agreement for non-compete fees; (v) Grasim did not consider the payment made to the Appellant as non-compete fees as it had deducted TDS on the payment of ₹ 3,80,48,100/at ₹ 1,16,42,719/. This was accepted by the Appellant as there was no protest on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s; In the result, the appeal of the Appellant was dismissed by the impugned order dated 9th May, 2006 while upholding the order dated 31st March, 2005 of the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9th May, 2006 of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed to this Court. Mr. Murlidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in support of the appeal submits as under: (a) The payment received as non-compete fees is not taxable in the subject Assessment Year as settled by the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imable as non-compete fees, then the authorities must hold under which head is the same classifiable. This not being done, the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/is classifiable as non-compete fees as claimed; and (d) The classification of the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/under the head 'profit in lieu of salary' under Section 17 of the Act must fail as the obligation under the Agreement dated 31st March, 2002 is to return the same if there is a breach of the Agreement on the part of the App .....

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 impugned order of the Tribunal; and (b) The authorities under the Act have come to a finding of fact that the so called agreement dated 31st March, 2002 is colourable document being a subterfuge, as in fact, no amount was in fact paid as non-compete fees to the Appellant. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. In principle, there is no dispute that the amount received as ₹ 3,80,48,100/if held to be a non-compete fees in respect of Assessment Year 200203, then the same is not charge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dence and material on record, then unless such inferences drawn are either arbitrary and/or perverse and/or such that no person trained in law could arrive at, the Court would not interfere in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. In other words, where the view of the authorities on facts based on inference is a possible view and sustainable then this Court will not interfere with the view of the authorities. We shall now examine the submissions keeping in mind the above broad test. 8. In the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reafter either before the authorities under the Act or even before us at the hearing of the appeal made any attempt to explain the circumstances in which the non-compete fees was negotiated at an odd figure of ₹ 3,80,48,100/. The submission of the Appellant that the figure of the compensation being odd or round, cannot by itself determine the character of the Appellant cannot be disputed. However, it is only one of the factors which the authorities have been relied upon to determine whethe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able. This is one of the features which suggests that the payment is not for non-compete fees as relied upon by all the authorities. 9. Similarly, the contention that the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/was received by the Appellant before the date of retirement and also before the execution of the non-compete agreement dated 31st March, 2002 by itself would not determine the character of the payment. The fact that the character of payment does not undergo a change, depending upon timing of its re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was made in advance was for some other purpose and not for as non-compete fees as claimed. However, as an afterthought, the same has been shown as non-compete fees to reduce the tax implication. 10. It was next contended by Mr. Murlidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the impugned order incorrectly places reliance upon the letter dated 29th October, 2001 to hold that the amount of ₹ 3,80,48,100/is not a non-compete fees. This on the basis that it referred to an advance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her fees namely - exgratia, other fees etc., The Appellant at no point of time, gave the breakup of ₹ 2.00 Crore paid in advance on 30th October, 2001 and the amount thereof attributable to non-compete fees. Nor has the Appellant led any evidence from Grasim to show what quantum out of ₹ 2.00 Crore paid to the Appellant, is on account of non-compete fees. Thus, this factor is one more feature which leads to the view that it is improbable the payment was for non-compete fees as claime .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st statute. Therefore, even if Appellant itself agrees to the deduction of TDS by Grasim, yet it would not prevent the Appellant from urging that in law, the non-compete fees cannot be subjected to tax. There can be no quarrel with the above submission of the Appellant. However, when this fact of nondeduction of TDS and no protest by the Appellant is taken along with other facts, the view taken by the authorities that the payment is made not on account of non-compete fees, is a reasonable and po .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m. On the above basis, the impugned order concludes that it is indicative of the fact that the Appellant continues to serve Grasim and, therefore, he could not have competed with Grasim. Thus, concluding that the payment of ₹ 3,80,48,100/was not a payment for non-compete fees. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that competition to Grasim from the Appellant is not by physical labour but by sharing his experiences and business tactics with Grasim's competitors. We understand. How .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 31st March, 2002, there is an obligation to return, if the Appellant commits a breach. This submission overlooks the fact that the Agreement dated 31st March, 2002 has on examination of the surrounding circumstances has been found to be in the nature of camouflage. Thus, being only a paper document, no right or obligations are created by the document. 14. Therefore, in the above facts, if one takes into account all factors listed out by the Tribunal in its impugned order, the view taken by the .....

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