High Court: Amount from Suzuki not taxable; capital receipt under IT Act; precedent on negative covenants; appeal dismissed

The High Court ruled that the amount received by the assessee from Suzuki India for not providing certain benefits in the two-wheeler segment was a capital receipt and not taxable as income under section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that compensation for a negative/restrictive covenant is a capital receipt, referring to previous judgments. Despite the Revenue's argument citing a 2016 amendment, the Court upheld the ITAT's decision, highlighting the fact-dependent nature of such cases and dismissing the appeal, stating no question of law arose.

---

---

Issues:
1. Taxability of the amount received by the assessee under Section 17(3) or under Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with the sole question of law concerning the taxability of an amount received by the assessee for two years. The assessee, a promoter and Director of a company, received Rs. 1.32 crores from Suzuki India for not providing certain benefits in the two-wheeler segment. The Revenue argued that the amount was revenue in character and thus taxable. The ITAT held that the amount was not a non-compete fee but a capital receipt, falling outside the ambit of section 28(va) of the Act. The Court referred to previous judgments and emphasized that compensation for a negative/restrictive covenant is a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax under section 28(va).

The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in treating the amount as capital instead of income. They highlighted the amendment in 2016, which brought such amounts under tax purview, irrespective of the nature of the activity carried out by the payer. The assessee's counsel argued that the ITAT's decision was in line with the law, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Guffic Chem. P. Ltd. The Court noted that the assessee received the amount for a limited period and had a dual role as a shareholder and Managing Director. It emphasized the fact-dependent nature of such cases and rejected the Revenue's argument that the amount should be treated as income even before the 2017 amendment.

The Court referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum G. Balakhia and the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd., which held that compensation for loss of source of income and non-compete fees are capital receipts not liable to tax. Considering these precedents, the Court found the ITAT's view plausible and dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose.

---