Home ›

Search Results For: 28(va)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: July 22, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 23, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 1995-96
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(v-a): There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-2004. It is only w.e.f. 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable u/s 28(v-a). It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively (All imp judgements referred)

The revenue has no business to second guess commercial or business expediency of what parties at arms-length decide for each other. For example, stating that there was no rationale behind the payment of INR 6.6 crores and that the assessee was not a probable or perceptible threat or competitor to the SWC group is the perception of the Assessing Officer, which cannot take the place of business reality from the point of view of the assessee, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. The fact that M/s Maltings Ltd. had incurred a loss in the previous year is again neither here nor there. It may in future be a direct threat to the SWC group and may turn around and make profits in future years. Besides, M/s Maltings Ltd. is only one concern of the assessee – it is the assessee’s expertise in this field on all counts that was the threat perception of the SWC group which cannot be second guessed by the revenue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(14)/ 28(va): The "right to sue" which arises on breach of a development agreement is a "personal right" and not a "capital asset" which can be transferred. Consequently, the damages received for relinquishment of the "right to sue" is a non-taxable capital receipt (all judgements considered)

A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party (owner) perceived threat of filing suit by developer and consequently paid damages/ compensation to shun the possible legal battle. The intrinsic point with respect to accrual of ‘right to sue’ has to be seen in the light of overriding circumstances as to how the parties have perceived the presence of looming legal battle from their point of view. I t is an admitted position that the defaulting party has made the assessee a confirming party in the sale by virtue of such development agreement and a compensation was paid to avoid litigation. This amply shows the existence of ‘right to sue’ in the perception of the defaulting party.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(va)/ 115JA: non-compete consideration received prior to insertion of s. 28(va) is not taxable. Amount credited to reserves without a corresponding debit to the P&L A/c cannot be added to the "book profits"

To invoke clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 115JB (identical to Section 115JA) of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied cumulatively viz. there must be a debit of the amount to the Profit and loss account and the amount so debited must be carried to Reserves. Admitted position in this case is that there is no debit to the Profit and loss account of the amount of Reserves. The impugned order has in view of the self evident position taken a view that in the absence of the amount being debited to Profit and Loss account and taken directly to the reserve account in the balance sheet, the book profits as declared under the Profit and Loss account cannot be tampered with

Read more ›