ACIT vs. GE Plastics India Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2012 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (GE_Plastics_non_compete_depreciation.pdf)

Non-Compete rights are an “intangible asset” eligible for depreciation

The assessee paid Rs. 4.55 crores to obtain a non-compete covenant from another company for a period of 10 years and claimed that the expenditure had resulted in an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii) on which depreciation was allowable. The AO rejected the claim though the CIT (A) allowed it. Before the Tribunal, the department relied on Srivatsan Surveyors (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 125 TTJ 286 (Chennai) where it was held that a non-compete right is a ‘right in persona’ and not a ‘right in rem’ and so depreciation was not allowable. HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal:

The AO’s objection that a non-compete right is not an “intangible asset” u/s. 32(1)(ii) on the ground that (a) it is not “any other business or commercial right of a similar nature” and (b) it is not capable of transfer like other intangible assets is not acceptable because (i) the right of absence of competition or the ‘non-compete right’ is an asset which is capable of being transferred and is of a similar nature as the other items referred to. This is shown by the fact that the right was transferred by the assessee at the time of its amalgamation and (ii) the expenditure resulted in the acquisition of an unrivaled and non-competed business territory for 10 years which brought advantages in the capital field. Though in Srivatsan Surveyors 125 TTJ 286 (Chennai), it was held that a restrictive covenant is a “right in persona” and not a “right in rem”, a contrary view was taken in ITO vs. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd 30 SOT 506 (Chennai). When two views are possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be followed held in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC).

One comment on “ACIT vs. GE Plastics India Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)
  1. Ramakrishnan B says:

    In the case of Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. ACIT 137 TTJ 373, the Chennai Bench of the ITAT has held that depreciation on non compete fees paid is not allowable and held that the same is allowable over the period of expenditure covered by the non compete agreement following the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial investment corporation 225 ITR 802 distinguishing the coordinate bench decision in Real Image Technologies 14 DTR 138 And Medicorp Technologies 30 SOT 506.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *