Tribunal decision on intangible assets depreciation, contractual payments, and transfer pricing adjustments.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, granting depreciation on non-compete rights as intangible assets. However, the disallowance of contractual payments to Xylon Holdings Pvt Ltd was upheld. The revenue's appeal challenging the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for transfer pricing adjustments was allowed, disallowing the 5% safe harbor adjustment. The order was pronounced on 14th August 2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of payment towards Non-Compete Rights as Intangible Asset for depreciation.
2. Disallowance of contractual payments made to M/s Xylon Holdings Pvt Ltd.
3. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for transfer pricing adjustments.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Payment towards Non-Compete Rights as Intangible Asset for Depreciation:
The assessee claimed depreciation on a non-compete fee of Rs. 50 lakhs paid to Mr. Shekhar K Shah, which was capitalized in the books. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) disallowed the depreciation, arguing that non-compete fees cannot be treated as intangible assets. The Tribunal, however, found that this issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd, which held that non-compete rights are intangible assets eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal also cited the Madras High Court's decision in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. vs. DCIT, which supported the view that non-compete clauses strengthen commercial rights and are thus depreciable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on non-compete rights for the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Contractual Payments Made to M/s Xylon Holdings Pvt Ltd:
The assessee entered into an agreement with Xylon Holdings Pvt Ltd to take over certain liabilities, including income tax and excise duty liabilities, totaling Rs. 74,02,764. The AO disallowed these payments, arguing that income tax liabilities cannot be claimed as expenditure and that excise duty penalties are not allowable under section 37 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing that income tax payments are not deductible and that the excise duty penalties were penal in nature. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that income tax liabilities, whether paid by the assessee or compensated to another party, are not deductible under section 40(a)(ii). The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of excise duty penalties, as they were deemed penal and not compensatory. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the contractual payments.

3. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s determination of the ALP, which granted a 5% safe harbor adjustment, reducing the transfer pricing adjustment to Rs. 20,42,500 from Rs. 63,55,322 determined by the TPO. The Tribunal noted that this issue was now settled against the assessee due to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2012, which clarified that the 5% adjustment cannot be applied if the variation exceeds 5% of the arithmetic mean. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting the 5% standard adjustment, and the revenue's appeal on this ground was allowed.

Conclusion:
- The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal granting depreciation on non-compete rights.
- The disallowance of contractual payments made to Xylon Holdings Pvt Ltd was upheld.
- The revenue's appeal regarding the ALP determination was allowed, disallowing the 5% safe harbor adjustment.

Order:
The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 14th August 2015, with the assessee's appeal partly allowed and the revenue's appeal allowed.

---