2014 (2) TMI 179 - HC - Income Tax

Deletion of disallowance on account of bad debts - Capital expenditure incurred Amount written off as business expenditure Advances made to sister concern Business loss OR business expenditure Held that - The amounts in question were incurred by the assessee for the business expediency of the wholly owned subsidiary companies and when it is not disputed that there existed a business nexus between the assessee and the subsidiary companies, such expenditure should be treated as having been incurred for the purpose of business and directly relatable to the business of the assessee and thus eligible for deduction as business expenditure in their return of business income - The assessing authority and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the claim in proper perspective. The Tribunal has given a cogent and convincing reasons for reaching a finding of fact that expenditure incurred was directly relatable to the business of the assessee and should be allowed as business expenditure Relying upon T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT and Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Oman International Bank 2009 (2) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - it was sufficient to record in the books as an irrevocable debt and not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had become irrevocable - as long as the debt established and written off in the books the assessee is not required to establish that it was a bona fide and not based on commercial wisdom or expediency Decided against Revenue. Slump sale - Whether slump sale could be treated as 'noncompete fee' and not liable to tax as a capital receipt Held that - The decision in CIT v. Real Image P. Ltd 2012 (7) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Guffic Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 2011 (3) TMI 6 - Supreme Court followed - the receipt in the nature of a non-compete fee should be treated only as a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the authorities below and treating the whole non-compete fee as capital receipt not liable to tax Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of bad debts as business expenditure.
2. Treatment of advances to sister concerns as business loss.
3. Taxability of non-compete fee as capital receipt.
4. Validity of non-compete fee when rights were previously surrendered.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Bad Debts as Business Expenditure:

The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 2,18,67,610 on account of bad debts. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim as the bad debts were not proven to have suffered tax earlier and were considered capital in nature. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view.

The Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction, considering the amounts as business expenditure. The Revenue argued that the debts were on capital account and not offered for tax earlier, thus not qualifying as bad debts under Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that post-April 1, 1989, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off in the accounts of the assessee.

The court found that the amounts were incurred for business expediency of wholly-owned subsidiary companies, thus eligible for deduction as business expenditure. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

2. Treatment of Advances to Sister Concerns as Business Loss:

The court examined whether advances made to sister concerns, which were sold in an earlier year, could be treated as business loss. The assessee had provided guarantees and loans to its subsidiaries, which later defaulted, leading to the amounts being written off as bad debts.

The Tribunal considered these advances as business expenditure, given the business nexus between the assessee and its subsidiaries. The court agreed with this view, noting that the advances were for business purposes and not for creating capital assets. Thus, the amounts written off were allowable as business loss.

3. Taxability of Non-Compete Fee as Capital Receipt:

The assessee received Rs. 5 crores as a non-compete fee, which the AO treated as a sale of goodwill and added to taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) viewed it as part of the sale consideration. The Tribunal, however, held it as a capital receipt, non-taxable.

The Revenue argued that the non-compete fee was goodwill, as the assessee had already surrendered its competing rights in a joint venture agreement. The court, however, found that the non-compete agreement with the new company, Food World Supermarket Ltd., was independent and justified the compensation.

Citing precedents like CIT v. Real Image P. Ltd. and Guffic Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, the court held that non-compete fees are capital receipts, not taxable. The Tribunal's decision was upheld.

4. Validity of Non-Compete Fee When Rights Were Previously Surrendered:

The court examined whether the non-compete fee was valid given that the assessee had already surrendered its rights in a prior joint venture agreement. The Tribunal found that the non-compete agreement with Food World Supermarket Ltd. was distinct and justified compensation for not competing in the retail business.

The court agreed, noting that the new company was a separate legal entity and the non-compete fee was for a legitimate business purpose. Thus, the amount received was a capital receipt, not liable to tax.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on all issues, confirming that the bad debts were deductible as business expenditure, the advances to sister concerns were business losses, and the non-compete fee was a capital receipt, not taxable. The appeal was dismissed, and all substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →