Deleting the addition made towards compensation received for termination of contract manufacturing agreement

Last updated: 23 February 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case concerns M/s. Sai Mirra Innopharm Private Limited appealing a decision that treated a £6,000,000 compensation payment for a terminated contract manufacturing agreement as a revenue receipt, rather than a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer made this addition under Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act, a decision that was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argues this addition is arbitrary and unlawful.

Court :
ITAT Chennai

Brief :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 30.10.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

Citation :
ITA 3454/CHNY/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.: 3454/CHNY/2019
Assessment Year: 2007-08

M/s. Sai Mirra Innopharm
Private Limited,
51, 3rd Floor, Tower C,
Tek Meadows OMR,
Shozhinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119.
PAN: AAECS3152L
Appellant)

vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward – 2(3),
Chennai.
Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Y. Sridhar, CA
Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2021

O R D E R

Per G. MANJUNATHA, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 30.10.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act on 28.12.2013 by allegedly treating the capital receipt as revenue receipt to the extent of Rs.6,00,00,000/-, The CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vide his order dt .30.10.2019.

The present appeal is towards the addition made u/s 148

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Further, the CIT(A), erred in confirming the addition made by the AO
to the extent of Rs.6,00,00,000/- u/s 28(va).
3. The order of CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjust and untenable in law.
4. The addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- u/s 28(va) is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. In this regard, the appellant wishes to submit as under:

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue was whether the £6,000,000 compensation received for the termination of a contract manufacturing agreement should be treated as a capital receipt (not taxable) or a revenue receipt (taxable).

The addition of £6,000,000 was made under Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act.

The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and later confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - CIT(A).

The assessee argued that the addition of £6,000,000 was arbitrary, unjust, and bad in law, contending it should be treated as a capital receipt.

This appeal relates to the assessment year 2007-08.