2016 (6) TMI 103 - HC - Income Tax

Non-competition fee paid - whether was revenue expenditure or capital expenditure? - Held that - The non-competition agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s KHPL was to prevent K.Raghu Ramakrishna Raju from establishing a power plant in Andhra Pradesh for a period of three years. The agreement, in the present case, prevented Sri K.Raghu Ramakrishna Raju from establishing a power plant only for a period of three years from the date of the agreement. The restrictive covenant was neither permanent nor was the advantage derived by the assessee therefrom of an enduring nature. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset by making payment of a non-competition fee; and it merely eliminated competition in its business for a while thus to be treated as revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of non-competition fee as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure for assessment year 2002-03.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the deduction of a non-competition fee paid by the assessee to a rival company as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure for the assessment year 2002-03. The assessing authority disallowed the expenditure treating it as capital expenditure, holding that the payment did not bring about any depreciable asset into existence. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, emphasizing that the payment was made to prevent competition and enable the assessee to derive more profits without hindrance. The Commissioner held that since the payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business, it should be allowed as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal, in its order, relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to determine the nature of the non-competition fee. The Tribunal held that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset by making the payment, as it only eliminated competition for a temporary period. The Tribunal concluded that the non-competition fee was a business expenditure, not a capital expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

The High Court, in its judgment, reiterated that the non-competition agreement was for a limited period of three years and did not result in the acquisition of a permanent or enduring asset. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset by paying the non-competition fee, but rather eliminated competition temporarily. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings, being final on facts, did not warrant interference unless based on no evidence or a perverse finding. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed that the non-competition fee paid by the assessee was rightly treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, for the assessment year 2002-03. The judgment highlighted the temporary nature of the non-competition agreement and the absence of an enduring benefit or acquisition of a capital asset by the assessee. The decision underscored the importance of the purpose for which the payment was made in determining its tax treatment as revenue or capital expenditure.