TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision on non-compete & termination fees as non-taxable income & capital gains</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3 (3), Mumbai Versus Shri Shekhar K. Shah</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3 (3), Mumbai Versus Shri Shekhar K. Shah - TMI Issues:1. Addition of non-compete fees2. Treatment of termination and severance feesIssue 1: Addition of non-compete feesThe appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 towards non-compete fees. The main contention was that the non-compete agreement dated 14.01.2002 was an afterthought to evade tax, as the income for future years was declared as non-taxable in AY 2002-03. The AO added Rs. 5,00,000 as taxable income under 'business and profession'. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the balance amount of Rs. 35,00,000 ceased to be a deposit and became consideration for AY 2002-03. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the reasons given by the AO were not plausible, as the supplementary agreement was executed due to a legitimate reason, i.e., the takeover of Vossloh, Germany.Issue 2: Treatment of termination and severance feesThe second ground of appeal concerned the treatment of termination and severance fees received by the assessee pursuant to a Termination Agreement dated 31st July, 2006. The AO taxed the termination fee under 'Income from Other Sources' and the severance fee as 'Salary', while the assessee considered them as capital gains. The CIT(A) held that both amounts are taxable as income under 'Capital Gains'. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the principle that receipts on termination of agreements are capital or revenue based on their impact on the business structure. As the termination and severance fees were received towards the termination of the Joint Venture, they were rightly treated as capital receipts and offered as income from Long Term Capital Gains in the relevant assessment year.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues related to the non-compete fees and the treatment of termination and severance fees.
TaxTMI 