9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Deletion of addition made of non-compete allowance in income tax assessment for multiple years. Analysis: The appeals by the Revenue were directed against orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96, regarding the deletion of non-compete allowance addition. The assessee, a retired engineer, received a non-compete allowance as part of a voluntary retirement agreement. The AO added the entire amount as profit in lieu of salary under section 17(3) of the IT Act during reassessment. Subsequently, the same amount was added in the assessments for the following years. The CIT(A) held that the non-compete allowance was a capital receipt not liable to income tax, relying on judicial precedents. The appellate order referred to decisions by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the capital nature of receipts related to restrictive covenants. The learned authorized representative supported the CIT(A)'s order with case laws, highlighting the restrictive nature of the amendment by Finance Bill 2003. The Departmental Representative argued that the payment should be treated as revenue receipt based on the payee's treatment and provisions made. Additionally, it was contended that payments made after the engineer's death should not be considered as non-compete allowance. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that compensation for refraining from business is a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. The Tribunal rejected the argument that payments to the legal heir were non-compete allowance, as the conditions were already met by the deceased engineer. The judgment discussed the amendments in the IT Act and previous court decisions, establishing that payments related to restrictive covenants are capital receipts. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made for non-compete allowance, dismissing all appeals by the Revenue.
|
