TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ], the Division Bench of this Court had granted similar benefit in the case where the non-compete agreement was for a period of three years. The Madras High Court in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [ 2018 (8) TMI 1554 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] also treated the expenditure as revenue in nature in a case where the non-compete agreement was for a period of five years holding that the same did not result into any enduring benefit to the assessee. Looking to the nature of non-compete agreement, as also the duration thereof, the Courts have recognised such expenditure as Revenue expenditure. In the present case, the assessee had executed subject agreement with the promoter of the Company to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a non-compete agreement with the original promoter of the Company under which in lieu of payment of ₹ 2.06 crores (rounded off), the promoter would not engage himself in the same business for a period of five years. Incidentally, the business of the company was of manufacture of oxygen gases. 3. The Assessing Officer did not allow the entire expenditure as claimed by the assessee but treated it as differed revenue expenditure to be spanned over five years period. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment held in favour of the assessee relying upon and referring to the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Mumbai V/s. M/s. Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai dated 14th December, 2012 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by eliminating the competition over a period of three years and the said period cannot be considered as sufficiently long period so as to ward off competition from 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. The Madras High Court in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. V. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
