TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal urges the only following questions of law, for our consideration: "(1) Whether on the facts and in, the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to treat the payment made by the assessee towards non compete fees as revenue expenditure, without appreciating the fact that the said expenses are capital in nature? (2) Whether on the facts and in, the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of foreign exchange loss based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 254 which deals with loss arising on account of foreign exch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, relevant to the subject assessment year, the respondent-assessee acquired customer rights/assets from M/s Peninsular Capital Markets Ltd (PCML), Capital Deal Stock & Shares Brokers (CDSSB) and Mani Stock Brokers Ltd (MSBL). In particular the respondent paid consideration to the above concerns, in the form of: (a) Customers Rights, (b) Fixed Assets, (c) Goodwill and (d) Noncompete fee. The respondent treated noncompete fee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order dated 31st December, 2003 did not allow the same as revenue expenditure, holding that, the payment made to the three companies as noncompeting fee were in the nature of capital expenditure. (ii) Being aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if the benefit is for a short term such as one year in this case, it is Revenue in nature. The Revenue has not even attempted to point out why the above test is not correct. (v) In the above view, this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question (2) : (i) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Appellant states that issue stands concluded against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd 312 ITR 254. (ii) In the above view, this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re.Question (4) : (i) The Respondent-assessee ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e speculation loss under Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. (ii) Being aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal to the CIT(A). By an order dated 29th November, 2010, the CIT(A) after examining the nature of respondent's assessee's business, held that the Vanda loss was incurred in the course of its carrying business as share broker. Thus, allowed the appeal. (iii) Being aggrieved, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal confirms the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that these transactions are carried out by the respondent not on his own account but in the course of his business as a broker. On the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that Explanation to Section 73 of the Act, wou....