9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 70,00,000 made to M/s. Blue Star Limited for elimination of competition is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Payment to M/s. Blue Star Limited: The primary issue revolves around the nature of the payment of Rs. 70,00,000 made by the assessee to M/s. Blue Star Limited (BSL) for eliminating competition. The assessee argued that this payment should be treated as a deductible business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, however, classified this payment as capital expenditure, citing judicial precedents such as CIT v. Coal Shipments (P.) Ltd. and Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT. The CIT(A) endorsed this view, stating that the payment resulted in a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee, thus constituting capital expenditure. 2. Agreement Details and Terms: The agreement between the assessee and BSL dated 7-8-1989 specified that BSL would refrain from engaging in any new business activities related to products competitive with HP's Test and Measurement product range for a period of two years. In return, HP India agreed to pay BSL a sum equivalent to USD 2,000,000 in two installments. The assessee debited Rs. 70,00,000 in its P&L account for the five-month period ending 31-3-1990, which was proportionate to the total payment. 3. Judicial Precedents and Arguments: The assessee's counsel cited several judicial rulings to support their contention that the payment should be treated as revenue expenditure. These included cases like Coal Shipments (P.) Ltd., Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The counsel argued that payments made to ward off competition should not be treated as capital expenditure if the advantage derived is not of a permanent nature. 4. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue's representative argued that the agreement's terms indicated a permanent cessation of BSL's business activities related to HP's products, despite the stated two-year period. The representative emphasized that the enduring benefit derived by the assessee from the agreement justified the classification of the payment as capital expenditure. 5. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal considered the principles for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, focusing on whether the expenditure brought into existence an asset or advantage of "an enduring nature." It noted that the expressions "enduring benefit" and "rights of a permanent nature" are not synonymous with perpetual or everlasting but should not be so transitory that they can be terminated at any time. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Coal Shipments (P.) Ltd., which stated that the duration of the advantage is crucial in determining whether an expenditure is capital or revenue. Applying this principle, the Tribunal observed that BSL had released its entire workforce and marketing establishment related to HP's products, effectively closing its business in this line. This indicated that the assessee obtained a monopoly right on a permanent basis, despite the agreement's stated two-year period. The Tribunal also reviewed other judicial authorities, such as CIT v. Kalinga Otto (P.) Ltd. and Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd., which supported the view that expenditure to ward off competition for an enduring benefit is capital in nature. 6. Final Decision: The Tribunal concluded that the payment of Rs. 70,00,000 was capital expenditure, as it provided the assessee with an enduring benefit by eliminating competition in its line of business. The disallowance of the expenditure by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) was upheld, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed. Summary: The Tribunal upheld the classification of the payment of Rs. 70,00,000 made to M/s. Blue Star Limited as capital expenditure, emphasizing that the expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit by eliminating competition in the assessee's line of business. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
|
