AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee to reduce the incidence of taxation. 4. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that in the assessee-company line of business goodwill does not exist. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. The assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of soft drinks like Coca Cola, Thums Up, Limca, Maaza etc., which were produced by Spectra Bottling Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Spectra). Spectra was a franchisee of the Coca-Cola Company, USA (hereinafter referred to as TCCC). The assessee states that it had developed a distribution network for marketing the soft drinks produced by Spectra and that it has its own fleat of vehicles which are sent to various distribution points as per requirements. It further states that the assessee, during the course of its business of distribution, had built and developed distribution network as it was also responsible for the proper conduct of the business of Spectra. The Franchisee Agreement given to Spectra was terminated by a Business Sale Agreement by TCCC and the business was purchased by Bharat Coca-Cola South East Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o licensed to deal in products in question by the BCC, would be in a position to compete with the BCC in the very same line of business. When there was no competition in the business and cannot be any restrictive covenant and the agreements are only self serving colourable devices to claim the revenue receipt as capital receipt in the guise of compensation over restrictive covenant. (e) The assessee did not at any stage have any enforceable or otherwise agreement/understanding/contract with the BCC. (f) In the books of account, the principal company (BCC) has treated the amounts paid as a revenue expenditure and whereas the assessee claimed as received on capital account. This is nothing but a planned tax evasion tactics attempted by the principal company and the assessee-company, working in tandem. 38. In view of the above discussion, and also for the reason that the principal company i.e., M/s. BCC has treated the entire amount paid as revenue expenditure, I hold that receipt Rs. 4 crores in the hands of the assessee-company constitutes revenue receipt and is exigible to tax." 5. Alternatively, the Assessing Officer held that the amount is liable to tax as compensatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be allowed and the amount received by the assessee under non-compete agreement is not liable to tax as it is a capital receipt. Aggrieved by his orders, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. The learned departmental representative submitted that BCC had taken over a number of bottling companies as going concerns in the entire country, which involved a few hundred crores of rupees and that when the company had taken over Hyderabad Bottling Co. Ltd. as a going concern for a consideration of Rs. 43 crores, an amount of Rs. 17 crores was paid to the four directors of Hyderabad Bottling Company and there was no payment whatsoever to the distribution company connected with Hyderabad Bottling Company either towards goodwill or towards non-compete agreement though both the groups have more volume of business as compared to Spectra. With this background, the learned counsel submitted that the first appellate authority was wrong in holding that there was certain confidential information that the distribution company possessed. He vehemently contended that there was no confidential information whatsoever and the amounts received in the guise of compensation for non-competition is actually an amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brand name is Coca Cola, there is no influence of the distributor over the sales, either positively or negatively; (i) That the assessee-company has no technical competence or financial strength to compete with a multi-national giant like BCC and thus, the so-called competition is only imaginary and the receipt in question being termed as non-compete fee is only a guise; (j) That the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148, applies as this is a colourable device; (k) That if it is not accepted that the receipt in question was a revenue receipt, then, alternatively, the receipt is taxable under sub-clause (a) of clause (iv) of section 28. For this proposition, the learned DR took this Bench through the findings of the Assessing Officer and relied on the same. The learned departmental representative emphasized that the Revenue relies more on the provisions of section 28(ii) and that the transaction falls within the ambit of the provisions, making it liable to tax. He also relied on the following case laws:- Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd.'s case Vadilal Soda Ice Factory v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 711 (G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no scope for goodwill in this line of business. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rustam Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [1970] 40 Compo Cas. 325, and submitted that goodwill is an intangible asset and profits earned for assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 shows that vast improvement in the business of the assessee. He submitted that TCCC was aware of this position and came forward to make substantial payment by acquisition of goodwill. He relied on the observations of the CIT(A) in paragraph 9 of his order. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that if it is held that this amount was not received for goodwill, then it partakes the nature of a capital receipt similar to the consideration received for restrictive covenant. 10. On application of section 28(ii), the learned counsel submitted that the agreement falls within the effect of new clause (v)(a) of section 28 introduced with effect from 1-4-2003 and that it does not come within the purview of section 28(ii)(a), (b), (c) and (d). He took this Bench through section 28(ii) and submitted that Spectra had nothing to do with the arrangement between the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties who have entered into agreement have to be considered, it is for the assessee to prove before the Assessing Officer to his satisfaction as to how the business of TCCC will be adversely affected by cancelling the distribution agreement and in the absence of proof to the effect that the business of TCCC would suffer an adverse effect if the assessee continues to be in the business of distributor of soft drinks, the Assessing Officer was right in arriving at the conclusion. Further, that it is for the assessee to prove that TCCC claimed the above expenditure as capital expenditure and not as revenue expenditure. (e) That the assessee's contention that restrictive covenant is not an empty formality is not supported by the agreement entered into between Spectra and the assessee and that in respect of each and every aspect of work relating to sales, it was only the manufacturer, i.e., Spectra, which took care. He reiterated the contention on confidential information and as to whether it can be said that the assessee has any goodwill. In the other part of the written submissions, he reiterated the contentions raised before the Bench, trying to distinguish the case laws. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, which demonstrate that the Assessing Officer had a preconceived notion and wrong understanding of the function of the assessee-company while coming to a conclusion that it was just an agreement for transporting goods and not an agreement for distributorship: Clause 1 of the agreement: "The goods i.e., Soft Drinks bottled by the manufacturer will be supplied to the distributor who in turn will sell the products to the retailers or district dealers. In the event the rates are changed the manufacturer will inform the distributor with a written notice." Clause 2: "The manufacturer will prescribe the rates at which the retailer has to sell to consumer and it is the responsibility of the distributor to regulate and supervise the retailer and make sure that the product is made available to the majority of consumers at the suggested retail price." Clause 4: "The distributor has to service the retail outlets at least once in three days and district dealer at least once in a week during the off season. During the peak season the service frequency will have to be more often and will be determined by the market needs." Clause 6: "The distributor has to work for b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ependent entities totally unconnected and unrelated to each other. BCC has purchased all the fixed assets as per the balance sheet of the assessee-company at an agreed price. The transactions in question cannot be termed as transactions within the group of connected persons. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence whatsoever to prove that these agreements are bogus agreements. As stated earlier, all that the Assessing Officer wanted to say is that "If I were to decide the matter by getting into the shoes of BCC, then I would not have made this payment". To hold that a transaction is colourable device, there should be something more than mere surmises and conjectures. The fact remains that BCC has paid the assessee certain amounts in pursuance of an agreement entered into between them and the taxability or otherwise of these amounts has to be considered by applying the settled law to these agreements. Merely saying that we do not believe these agreements, without an iota of evidence, cannot be countenanced. Even if it is to be held that the assessee had arranged its affairs in such a manner as to minimise its tax liability, then it has to be held that a citizen has the fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f tax irrespective of legitimacy or genuineness of the act; an inference which unfortunately, in our opinion, the Tribunal apparently appears to have drawn from the enunciation made in McDowell's case [1958] 154 ITR 148 (SC). The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the context it has been made. The facts and circumstances which lead to McDowell's decision leave us in no doubt that the principle enunciated in the above case has not affected the freedom of the citizen to act in a manner according to his requirements, his wishes in the manner of doing any trade, activity or planning his affairs with circumspection, within the framework of law, unless the same fall in the category of colourable device which may properly be called a device or a dubious method or a subterfuge clothed with apparent dignity.' This accords with our own view of the matter." At page 762 of the report, it was observed: "If the court finds that notwithstanding a series of legal steps taken by an assessee, the intended legal result has not been achieved, the court might be justified in overlooking the intermediate steps, but it would not be permissible for the court to treat the intervening le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was a colourable device or subterfuge. 18. Coming to the next contention of the Revenue that the treatment of the payment in the hands of TCCC has to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether the receipt in question is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, we find that it is against the settled propositions of law. To give an example of the case of a real estate businessman, sites and buildings are stock-in-trade and sale of the same is a revenue receipt. But, if a buyer buy it as a capital asset, then it would be a capital expenditure in the hands of the buyer and just because the real estate dealer treated it as a revenue receipt, the buyer cannot claim the same as his revenue expenditure. Similarly, on the contra, if a company or an individual has a fixed asset being land and building, which it holds for a number of years as investment/fixed asset and sells the same to a real estate agent who deals in property, then in the hands of the seller it is a capital receipt and in the hands of the buyer, who is a real estate agent, it is a revenue expenditure. The legal propositions in this regard are fairly well settled. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in which TCCC had treated the payment in its books of account does not in any way help in coming to a conclusion as to whether the receipt in question was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. 20. Now, we consider the terms of the agreements and the tax effect. In the Non-compete Agreement dated 19-9-1997, it was mentioned as follows:- "1. Scope of Agreement (a) In consideration of the amount set forth below, the Covenantor covenants and agrees that, for five (5) years from the execution hereof the Covenantor shall not at any time disclose to any person for any purpose or use any confidential information in any business or venture, either directly or indirectly through any person, firm, company or other body corporate in which the Covenantor owns equity or otherwise, in and around the State of Andhra Pradesh. (b) Covenantor further agrees that after the execution hereof it shall use all reasonable endeavours to prevent the publication or disclosure of any Confidential Information. (c) For purposes of this Agreement, Confidential Information shall mean all information (including that comprised in or derived from manual instructions, catalogues, booklets, data disk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g and distribution for a period of five years and shall also promptly refer to BCC all enquiries relating to the business of distribution of soft drinks. In the agreement for purchase of goodwill, in clause 5 at page 3, the assessee is required to even change its registered name within 60 days. The distribution agreement with Spectra formed a capital asset of the assessee's business, and this distribution agreement was a means with which the assessees entered into business transactions and that which the assessees worked or exploited. The distribution agreement constituted or formed part of the fixed capital of the assessees' business and it was neither the stock-in-trade nor the circulating capital of assessees. It really formed the profit-making apparatus of the assessees' business. 21. It is necessary to bear in mind the following principles enunciated by various courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court- (A) In the case of Blue Star Ltd. Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that if a payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of the recipient's business nor deprive the recipient of what in substance is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest, the receipt must be regarded as a revenue receipt. (F) In the case of Manna Ramji & Co. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in order to resolve the controversy as to whether a receipt is of revenue character or capital in nature, one must try to ascertain the true nature and character of the payment. In border-line cases, the controversy has to be resolved on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. If the payment is received on account of sterilisation and destruction of a capital asset and if the assessee was permanently deprived of a source of income, it could be held as a capital receipt; otherwise, it is a revenue receipt. (G) In the case of CIT v. Shams her Printing Press [1960] 39 ITR 90, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if an amount was received for an injury to the assessee's capital assets including goodwill, it would be treated as a capital receipt, and if it was received as a compensation for loss of profit, it was a revenue receipt liable to tax. (H) In the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. the Apex Court observed that there is no immutable principle that compensation received on cancellation of an agency must always be regarded as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the company. Upon termination of such agreement, the company paid compensation. The court observed that the agreement secured to the firm an advantage of an enduring nature and was not an ordinary trading agreement and thus the receipt is capital in nature. (K) In the case of Dr. K.P. Karanth, the assessee having technical know-how for manufacture of drugs, had given up his right to manufacture drugs and such receipt was held to be capital in nature. (L) In the case of CIT v. C.R. Karthikeyan [1993] 201 ITR 866 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the expression "income" should be given a wider meaning and though an income is casual in nature, it can nevertheless be treated as income assessable to tax. (M) In the case of Elegant Chemicals Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 271 ITR (AT) 56, this Bench had an occasion to consider the issue as to whether an amount received by the assessee is capital or revenue in nature. In that case, the Bench observed that the surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration to find out the reality of the recitals made in the documents, and by applying the test laid down by the Apex Court, it was held that the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 22. To sum up, the recent decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar [2005] 279 ITR 573, wherein it has considered various High Court judgments as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is applicable to the facts of this case. At pages 576 to 578, the Hon'ble High Court observed as follows:- "In CIT v. Best and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC), the respondent was a company carrying on business including distribution of their explosives of Imperial Chemical Industries (Exports) Ltd., Glasgow. The Imperial Chemical Industries (Exports) Ltd., Glasgow decided that all its agencies in India should be taken over by Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Ltd., and gave notice to respondent terminating the agency from April 1, 1948. On termination of the agency some compensation has been paid which includes compensation for undertaking of the assessee, that assessee for 5 years shall refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives competitive with those covered by the agency agreement. The question before Their Lordships whether the amount of compensation for the 'non-compete agreement' is a revenue receipt. Their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nity to make profits under the collaboration agreement taken in conjunction with industrial licence. The court held that the amount received as compensation is a capital receipt. In CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63, the dispute before the Madras High Court was that the compensation received by the assessee for not carrying on bus business for five years, whether the payment was 'restrictive covenant' is a revenue receipt. The deceased and his son with others were partners in five different firms carrying on business. During the year 196364 relevant for the assessment year 1964-65, all the old partners of the firms retired in stages so that by April 1, 1964 all the various firms were composed of entirely new groups of partners. The deceased and his son were paid varying amounts by the various firms toward off competition from them in regard to the bus service business. The firms in their assessments claimed this amount as revenue expense. The assessee (deceased and his son) claimed that the amount received from the various firms towards restrictive covenant is not taxable as it is a capital asset. The Madras High Court has taken the view that the amount of compensation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanation.- For the purposes of this clause,- (i) 'agreement' includes any arrangement or understanding or action in concert, (A) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is formal or in writing; or (B) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings; (ii) 'service' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of services in connection with business of any industrial or commercial nature such as accounting, banking, communication, conveying of news or information, advertising, entertainment, amusement, education, financing, insurance, chit funds, real estate, construction, transport, storage, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding and lodging;" The first issue is whether the provisions of this clause is declaratory or retrospective in nature, as this clause was not in the Act during the impugned assessment year. We do not think so. The provision introduced is of substantive character. The Legislature has not made this amendment retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication. On the contrary, it is specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination of any agency, nor was the payment made at the instance or on behalf of Spectra. 26. Thus, on a plain reading of section 28(ii) and applying the same to the facts of this case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contentions of the learned DR (CIT). What section 28(ii) specifically deals with is with reference to compensation for general termination of agency or modification of terms and conditions relating thereto. These provisions were brought in only in the context of managing agency agreements. The assessee in its own right distributed products bottled by Spectra in pursuance of a distribution agreement, which definitely is not an agency agreement. The first appellate authority, in the case of Kode Enterprises (P.) Ltd. in his order dated 11-3-2002, observed at paragraph 8, page 9, as follows:- "I agree with the Appellant's submissions. Invoking the provisions of section 28 and discussing the various case law by the A.D. from para 43 onwards is not relevant as appellant is not a management agent nor the agreement with Spectra was an agency agreement. So I hold that the provisions of section 28 do not apply to the agreement entered into by the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 13,51,296 Profit for the year 23,71,844 88,19,305 1,04,42,471 The agreement of goodwill clearly shows that BCC acknowledged the fact that the assessee-company had goodwill and had agreed to pay for the same. The basis on which such goodwill is to be quantified is given in the agreement itself. We do not understand as to how the Revenue contends that there is no goodwill whatsoever in this case, especially when the assessees have developed a distribution network and have achieved sales figures in crores of rupees. The Assessing Officer cannot simply state that he disbelieves the agreement, as in his perception there is no goodwill whatsoever, that too without any rhyme or reason. We are dismayed at the observations made by the Assessing Officer which are without an iota of evidence that the agreement in question is a make-believe agreement. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rustom Covasjee Cooper's case observed that "Goodwill of a business is an intangible asset; it is the whole advantage of the reputation and connections formed with the customers together with the circumstances making the connectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 30. Though there is no specific ground taken by the Revenue, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 50(2) at paragraph 65 of his order and the learned CIT(DR) has referred to the same. Firstly, this issue cannot be gone into by the Tribunal as not even an additional ground is taken by the Revenue. The Tribunal's powers are strictly confined to the subject-matter in the appeal, as held in- (1) CIT v. Krishna Mining Co. [1977] 117 ITR 702 (AP); (2) CIT v. Begum Noor Banu Alladin [1993] 204 ITR 166 (AP) (3) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); and (4) Pathikonda Balasubba Setty v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 252 (Mys.). Thus, mere mention by way of reading the order of the Assessing Officer does not empower us to go into the issue. Even otherwise, section 50(2) refers to block of assets ceasing to exist as such by reason of transfer of the entire "block of assets". The term "block of assets" is defined in section 2(11) of the Act and comprises of certain tangible assets as well as intangible assets, but the primary requirement is that a rate of depreciation has to be prescribed i.e., in other words the asset should be a depreciable asset. E.g., "land"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e computation provisions together constitute an integrated fiscal code. In the present case computation provisions contained under section 48 failed and, therefore, consideration received for agreeing not to manufacture would not fall within the purview of charging section. 20. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, the Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principal or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by section 45 must fall under the governance of its computation provisions. A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by section 45 to be the subject of the charge. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the Act where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. 21. In the case of Sunil Sidharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 506/23 Taxman 14W, the Supreme Court has observed that the provision of section 48 is fundam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akula Agamma [1987] 63 CTR (AP) 108 : [1987] 165 ITR 3 (AP) (7) CIT v. Chive Mills Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) [1983] 36 CTR (Cal.) 300 : [1986] 148 ITR 14 (Cal.) (8) CIT v. Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. [1997] 140 CTR (Cal.) 454 : [1997] 226 ITR 34 (Cal.) (9) Srikrishna Dairy & Agricultural Farm v. CIT [1987] 65 CTR (AP) 44 : [1985] 169 ITR 291 (AP) (10) Addl. CIT v. K.S. Sheikh Mohideen [1979] 8 CTR (Mad.) 84 : [1978] 115 ITR 243 (Mad.) (11) Voltas Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 64 ITD 232 (Mum.) The Legislature was also fully aware of this legal position and therefore it has amended section 55(2)(a) and consequently incorporated the definition of the 'cost of acquisition' in respect of number of all assets and profit for taking cost of such assets to be Nil. Initially, the amendment was made to take the cost of goodwill to be Nil with effect from assessment year 1988-89. Thereafter with effect from assessment year 1995-96, the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights to be Nil. With effect from assessment year 1998-99, the cost of acquisition of the right to manufacture, produce and process any article or thing was taken to be Nil and thereafter from the assessme....