9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 667 - AT - Income TaxFee treated as capital expenses - Disallowance of Non-compete fee Fee paid to Executive Director Held that - The payee is precluded from making a claim, for the reason that the intellectual property is developed etc. during the course of his employment with the company the CIT(A) and AO were not right in taking the view that the assessee company has paid the compensation to acquire the intellectual property from the payee permanently - The territorial restriction prescribed in Article 5 does not lead to a conclusion that Mr. Prasrampuria was carrying on any business in those area - he was only prohibited from exercising the activities prescribed in Article 5 in those four countries. All the three reasons cited by the CIT(A) to confirm the addition has failed - the period of prohibition / restriction is for a period of one year only - the period of one year cannot be considered as a long period which would give an enduring benefit to the assessee relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Eicher Limited 2008 (3) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - the assessee could not be said to have derived any enduring benefit out of the payment of non-compete fee - it is in the nature of restricting only one of the employees of the Company that was taken over by the assessee company thus, it cannot be considered as a Capital expenditure - the tax authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim of ₹ 80.88 lakhs treating the same as Capital expenditure - thus, the order of the CIT(A) set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the non-compete fee paid to the Executive Director should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Non-Compete Fee: The primary issue in this case is whether the non-compete fee of Rs. 80.88 lakhs paid to the Executive Director should be classified as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee company, formerly known as Indorama Cement Ltd, merged with Mysore Cement Ltd and was later taken over by Heidelberg Cement Group. The Executive Director, who was terminated upon the takeover, was paid a non-compete fee to prohibit him from engaging in competitive activities for one year. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee argued that the non-compete fee was a revenue expenditure because it was paid to prevent the Executive Director from competing with the company for one year, which directly relates to the company's revenue. The assessee also contended that the clauses 8 and 9 of the Compromise Settlement, which deal with confidential information and intellectual property, are standard clauses and not the basis for the payment. Assessment Officer's (AO) View: The AO treated the non-compete fee as a capital expenditure, arguing that it provided an enduring benefit to the company by preventing competition and protecting confidential information. The AO relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asianet Communication vs DCIT, which treated similar payments as capital expenditure. CIT(A)'s Observations: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the non-compete fee covered a territorial restriction over four countries, thus acquiring business in those regions. The CIT(A) also noted that the fee was in lieu of confidential information and intellectual property, which are capital assets. The CIT(A) cited several case laws to support the view that such payments are capital in nature. Arguments by the Assessee in Appeal: The assessee's counsel argued that the non-compete fee was paid solely under Article 5 of the agreement, which imposed a one-year restriction. The counsel emphasized that the fee did not relate to clauses 8 and 9, which are standard and did not involve any additional compensation. The counsel also distinguished the case from other cited cases, arguing that the restriction period in those cases was longer and involved different circumstances. Revenue's Argument: The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the entire Compromise Settlement Agreement should be read as a whole, and the clauses on confidential information and intellectual property provided an enduring benefit to the company. The DR cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT, which held that annual payments could also be capital expenditure. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal carefully examined the Compromise Settlement and concluded that the non-compete fee was specifically paid under Article 5, which imposed a one-year restriction. The Tribunal found that clauses 8 and 9 were standard and did not involve additional compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the territorial restriction did not imply that the Executive Director was conducting business in those regions. The Tribunal held that the one-year restriction did not provide an enduring benefit to the company and that the non-compete fee should be considered a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Eicher Ltd, which held that non-compete fees should not be treated as capital expenditure if the restriction is not permanent and does not provide an enduring advantage. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the claim of Rs. 80.88 lakhs as revenue expenditure. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th February 2014.
|
