TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and on facts by considering the noncompete fees amounting to Rs. 38,00,000/- to be a capital expenditure without considering the nature of the expenditure. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the noncompete fees gives enduring benefit to the Appellant even when looking at the terms of the resolution evidence that only the profit earning apparatus of the Appellant was affected and there was no element of enduring benefit. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Smartchem Technologies Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 359 (Guj) has been reversed and is therefore not applicable in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng details along with the details of expenses incurred towards WIP and material details, labour charges, copy of ledger account of concerned parties alongwith bills and vouchers. Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was also issued to verify the squared-up account and sundry creditors. Reply was received in response to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made large payment of Rs. 38,00,000/- to the retiring partner Shri Paras C. Pandit and claimed Rs. 38,00,000/- as release of right expense in its profit and loss account. However, this expense is not supported by any valuation report towards the market value of such right of Shri Paras C. Pandit nor any computation on the basis of w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 13135 11.71 31.03.2018 to 31.03.2019 16750 14.95 31.03.2019 to 31.03.2020 43965 39.23 31.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 9600 8.60 31.03.2021 to 31.03.2022 4125 3.68 112080 100.00 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the details of various projects undertaken by Shri Paras Pandit evidencing his reputation in the real estate business due to which the non-compete fee was paid to him are as under :- Name of Project Entity Designation of Mr.Paras Pandit Saleable Area (Sq. in Lakhs) Total Units Year of competition/initiation of project Vedika Exotica, Gandhinagar Sheetal Infrastructure Private Limited (SIPL) Managing Director and Owner 4.63 74 2011 (Comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for avoiding any near future business competition from him cannot be claimed by the Revenue to be purely stage managed especially when the said payment has also been offered to tax by Shri Paras Pandit in its return of income filed for A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 The Ld. AR further related upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.12044 of 2016 order dated 22.07.2020.) as well as the following decisions:- 1) Income Tax Officer vs. Smartchem Technologies Limited [2019] 103 taxmann.com 359 (Gujarat) 2) Asianet Communications Limited [2018] 96 taxmann.com 399 (Madras) 3) Hatsun Agro Products Limited [2018] 99 taxmann.com 220 (Madras) with SLP withdrawn before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018- 19 equally Rs. 38,00,000/- approximately for each year. From the perusal of the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has never disputed that Shri Paras C. Pandit has paid the taxes on the amount received by him through the assessee i.e. Limited Liability Partnership Firm. The non-compete clause was a strategy clause entered by the assessee LLP with Shri Paras C. Pandit in respect of ensuring the competitive element as well as profit element. The decision relied by the Revenue in case of Gillanders Case has not taken into account the same and in fact the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta clearly set out when the non-compete fee is paid only to the particular person in respect of cons....