Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 904 - AT - Income Tax
Nature of expenditure - non-compete fees - revenue or capital expenditure - disallowance of non-business expenditure - HELD THAT - We observe that since the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Ahmedabad Tribunal in assessee s own case for the succeeding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2018-19 2024 (7) TMI 961 - ITAT AHMEDABAD in which the balance amount of non-compete fee was paid to the retiring partner (notably the assessee firm had paid non-compete fee to the retiring partner over two assessment years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19) and for assessment year 2018-19, the Ahmedabad Tribunal in assessee s own case has held that the aforesaid payment is allowable to the assessee firm, as revenue expenditure. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition towards unexplained credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - AO and Ld. CIT(Appeals) did not issue a blanket judgment but instead provided detailed findings on the financial status of each of the creditors. Additionally, the common trend amongst the lenders was that the bank statements of all creditors displayed a similar pattern the credit balances were modest, a credit entry appeared, followed by the withdrawal of a cheque for nearly the same amount made out to the assessee, after which the bank balances reverted to their previous minimal levels. This recurring sequence in all creditors cases raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the transactions, as such patterns are unlikely to be coincidental. Therefore,no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in holding that the assessee s claim that it has satisfied the requirements of Section 68 remains unsubstantiated, particularly concerning the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. The argument of assessee that it was established only in the earlier previous year and hence, no income can be attributed in its hand is also not acceptable, for the simple reason that the assessee firm was incorporated on 19-11-2014 and during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee firm was fully operational and had also claimed various expenses, with respect of its operations. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. Decided against assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
- Whether the non-compete fees amounting to Rs. 38,00,000/- should be considered as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
- Whether the addition of Rs. 1,77,24,909/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for loans taken from seven parties, is justified on the grounds that the creditworthiness of the lenders could not be established.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Non-compete Fees as Capital or Revenue Expenditure
- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of whether an expense is capital or revenue in nature is guided by the Income Tax Act and various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta, which distinguishes between capital and revenue receipts based on the nature of the transaction.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the nature of the non-compete agreement, the payment structure, and the business context. It was noted that the payment was made to prevent competition from a retiring partner, which directly impacts the business operations and profits of the assessee.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee firm paid Rs. 76,00,000/- over two years as non-compete fees to a retiring partner, Shri Paras C. Pandit. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the expense, questioning its relevance due to the limited non-compete radius and lack of supporting documentation.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles outlined in relevant case law to determine that the non-compete fees were a business strategy expense aimed at protecting the firm's profit-making apparatus, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the Gillanders case, emphasizing the unique facts of the assessee's situation and the strategic nature of the non-compete agreement.
- Conclusions: The court allowed the non-compete fees as revenue expenditure, reversing the disallowance by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), based on the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the subsequent assessment year.
Issue 2: Addition under Section 68 for Unsecured Loans
- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any credit entries. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish these elements.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court scrutinized the financial capacity of the lenders and the pattern of transactions, which raised doubts about the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessing Officer found that the lenders had meager incomes, minimal bank balances, and failed to respond to summons, which led to the conclusion that their creditworthiness was not adequately established.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from the case of NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., emphasizing the need for credible evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the assessee's argument that the burden of proof shifted to the Revenue once identity and genuineness were established, citing the lack of credible evidence for creditworthiness.
- Conclusions: The court upheld the addition under Section 68, agreeing with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
- Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The non-compete clause was a strategy clause entered by the assessee LLP with Shri Paras C. Pandit in respect of ensuring the competitive element as well as profit element."
- Core Principles Established: The distinction between capital and revenue expenditure depends on the nature and purpose of the expense. The creditworthiness of lenders under Section 68 must be substantiated with credible evidence.
- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The non-compete fees were allowed as revenue expenditure, while the addition under Section 68 for unexplained credit was upheld.
This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 16/01/2025.
This summary provides a detailed analysis of the issues considered in the judgment, the court's reasoning, and the final determinations made on each issue. The HTML tags ensure the structure is maintained for clarity.