TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>High Court decision on taxability of noncompete fees as capital upheld, disallowance of sales promotion expenses deleted, deduction denied for export origin.</h1> The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision regarding the taxability of noncompete fees as capital, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It also agreed with the ... Receipt in the form of non-compete fees - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- As decided in ANJUM G BALAKHIA [2016 (7) TMI 575 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively. In the present case, compensation received under Non-Competition Agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory - Appellate Tribunal right in holding that provisions of section 28(iv) are not applicable in the case of assessee - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Interpretation of noncompete fees as capital in nature for tax purposes.2. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses without proper justification.3. Eligibility of miscellaneous income for deduction under section 80 HHC.Interpretation of Noncompete Fees:The High Court addressed the first issue concerning the characterization of noncompete fees as capital in nature for tax purposes. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the taxability of Rs. 14,55,41,760 received as noncompete fees. The Court noted a previous judgment in a related case involving the same assessee where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Court upheld the ITAT's decision and dismissed the appeal.Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses:Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 45,215 for sales promotion expenses done by the AO on an estimates basis without proper justification, the Court found that the AO had not been provided with sufficient details by the assessee to substantiate the claim. As a result, the High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision to delete the disallowance, as the AO's action lacked proper justification.Eligibility of Miscellaneous Income for Deduction:The third issue involved the eligibility of Rs. 54,316 of miscellaneous income for deduction under section 80 HHC. The Court considered whether the income was derived from export activities, which would make it eligible for the deduction. The assessee failed to justify that the income was export-derived, raising doubts about its eligibility for the deduction. Despite this, the ITAT had allowed the deduction. However, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to support this decision and dismissed the appeal, thereby denying the deduction for the miscellaneous income.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decisions on the issues of noncompete fees and sales promotion expenses, while denying the deduction under section 80 HHC for the miscellaneous income.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
