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 ruling: Non-compete fee disallowed, service charges partly disallowed, excise duty exemption not pressed, share premium not for MAT</h1> <h3>Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle-12 (1), New Delhi. (Vice-Versa)</h3> Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle-12 (1), New Delhi. (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of non-compete fee as capital expenditure.2. Disallowance of 1/5th of service and processing charges.3. Addition on account of excise duty exemption.4. Inclusion of share premium amount in book profit for MAT purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Non-compete Fee as Capital Expenditure:The assessee claimed a non-compete fee of Rs. 48,34,13,706 as revenue expenditure, which the AO disallowed, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal noted the consistent decisions in the assessee's own cases for previous assessment years (A.Y. 2002-03 and A.Y. 2001-02) where the non-compete fee was held to be capital expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, including the additional ground, maintaining the disallowance of the non-compete fee as capital expenditure.2. Disallowance of 1/5th of Service and Processing Charges:The AO disallowed Rs. 9,27,19,720, being 1/5th of service and processing charges, due to the assessee's failure to provide details and justifications. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's argument that adequate opportunity was not provided and the additional evidence should have been admitted, restored the issue to the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the assessee a final opportunity to file requisite details and reconcile differences with third-party accounts, thereby allowing the grounds for statistical purposes.3. Addition on Account of Excise Duty Exemption:The assessee did not press grounds related to the addition on account of excise duty exemption (Ground Nos. 13-17). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed these grounds as not pressed.4. Inclusion of Share Premium Amount in Book Profit for MAT Purposes:The AO included Rs. 2,086.14 crores from the share premium account in the book profit for MAT purposes, arguing it was utilized to write off accumulated brought forward losses, thus partaking the character of a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, reasoning that the share premium account is not a reserve and its reversal need not be reflected in the profit & loss account. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT, holding that the AO cannot go beyond the net profit shown in the profit & loss account except as provided in the Explanation to section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 19.10.2020.
TaxTMI 