2011 (3) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d amount was paid by Ranbaxy under an agreement dated 31.3.1997. Assessee is a part of Gufic Group. Assessee agreed to transfer its trademarks to Ranbaxy and in consideration of such transfer assessee agreed that it shall not carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it on the terms and conditions appearing in the agreement. Assessee was carrying on business of manufacturing, selling and distribution of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations including products mentioned in the list in Schedule-A to the agreement. The agreement defined the period, i.e., a period of 20 years commencing from the date of the agreement. The agreement defined the territory asterritoryofIndiaand rest of the world. In short, the agreeme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta 53 ITR 283. Against the said decision of the High Court assessee has come to this Court by way of petition for special leave to appeal, hence this civil appeal. Decision 5. The position in law is clear and well settled. There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. 6. The above dichotomy is clearly spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Gillanders' case (supra) in which the facts were as follows. The assessee in that cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iness was a capital receipt. This dichotomy has not been appreciated by the High Court in its impugned judgment. The High Court has misinterpreted the judgment of this Court in Gillanders' case (supra). In the present case, the Department has not impugned the genuineness of the transaction. In the present case, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till the assessment year 2003-04. It is only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1.4.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See....