Inquiry regarding payment to avoid competition
This query is : Resolved
07 January 2012
A aged 77 is having a Petrol Pump since 10 years, having a good business. His son b is looking the administration of the Petrol Pump and is remunerated.
Now, B has also established is own Petrol Pump in the same locality last year although he is in employment.
A has entered into an agreement with B to discontinue his Petrol Pump and agreed to pay Rs. 25000/- per month for 5 years to avoid loss of his business.
Please advise with decided judgment whether the payment will be revenue expenditure for A.
Now, B has also established is own Petrol Pump in the same locality last year although he is in employment.
A has entered into an agreement with B to discontinue his Petrol Pump and agreed to pay Rs. 25000/- per month for 5 years to avoid loss of his business.
Please advise with decided judgment whether the payment will be revenue expenditure for A.
08 January 2012
It will be a capital expenditure
In the case of Tecumseh India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010-TIOL-408-ITAT-DEL-SE3]
“129. According to above observations it can be seen that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer will constitute capital expenditure and to hold them capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fee is paid to create monopoly rights.
130 . The assessee also cannot get any help from the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Company Ltd. (supra) as in that case their Lordships have clearly found from the record that it was not clear that how long the restrictive covenant was to last and what the assessee had done was that it eliminated the competition in the two-wheeler business for a while. Their Lordships have also found that the benefit received by the assessee in that case was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of assessee the non compete agreement is applicable for 5 years, which period has been considered to be sufficient to give enduring benefit in the case of Assam Bengal (supra).
131. With these observations we hold that the expenditure of Rs.2.65 crore claimed by the assessee in pursuance of non-compete agreement dated 10th July, 1997 are capital expenditure, the deduction of which cannot be granted to the assessee as revenue expenditure. The main issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.”
In the case of Tecumseh India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010-TIOL-408-ITAT-DEL-SE3]
“129. According to above observations it can be seen that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer will constitute capital expenditure and to hold them capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fee is paid to create monopoly rights.
130 . The assessee also cannot get any help from the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Company Ltd. (supra) as in that case their Lordships have clearly found from the record that it was not clear that how long the restrictive covenant was to last and what the assessee had done was that it eliminated the competition in the two-wheeler business for a while. Their Lordships have also found that the benefit received by the assessee in that case was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of assessee the non compete agreement is applicable for 5 years, which period has been considered to be sufficient to give enduring benefit in the case of Assam Bengal (supra).
131. With these observations we hold that the expenditure of Rs.2.65 crore claimed by the assessee in pursuance of non-compete agreement dated 10th July, 1997 are capital expenditure, the deduction of which cannot be granted to the assessee as revenue expenditure. The main issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.”
Message likes :
1 times
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Tax on Amount transferred in HUF Account
- Nursery business
- GST REFUND ISSUE ON PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY
- TDS on Dashcam rent and allied services
- Working on Gold wastage during Melting of old gold jewellery
- Condonation Request sec 119(2) b -Enhancement Limit of Leave Exemption prior to AY 2023
- Intimation under section 245
- GST input credit on commercial property
- ETDS return q4 25-26
- Section 269ST applicability for capital introduced by partner to his partnership firm
- GSTR-9C filing
- Royalty payments to the Mining Department for procurement of murum - GST input
- HOW TO ADJUST CREDIT NOTE AMOUNT ?
- Import Order Cancelled.
- WRONG GSTR7 ENTRIES ACCEPTED ERRONEOUSLY
- Expert Help Required for TDS Refund 100000 Through TRACES – AY 2022–23
- IMPORT PURCHASE ENTRY PASSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT
- FAST DS 26 Undisclosed Foreign Asset Disclosure Scheme 2026
- Regime change
- Tally: Imported bank entries do not show up in manual reconciliation
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
