Section 45 – Capital gains – Non-compete clause – Transfer of business – Amount is liable to be bifurcated and apportioned – Attributed to the non- compete clause is revenue receipts and remaining was to be treated as the capital receipt taxable as capital gains.

1.    2.   
Pr CIT-17 vs. Lemuir Air
Express [ ITA no 1388 of 2016 Dated: 6^th February, 2019 (Bombay High
Court)]

[ACIT-12(3)
vs. Lemuir Air Express; dated 9^th October, 2015 ; ITA. No
3245/Mum/2008, AY : 2004-05 Bench: G 
Mum.  ITAT ]

Section
45 – Capital gains – Non-compete clause – Transfer  of 
business – Amount is liable to be bifurcated and apportioned –
Attributed to the non- compete clause is revenue receipts and remaining was to
be treated as the  capital receipt
taxable as capital gains.

The
assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee was engaged in the business as
custom house agent, as also an air cargo agent. The activities of the assessee
would involve assisting the clients in air freight, forwarding for export etc.
During the year, the assessee transferred its business of international cargo
to one DHL Danzar Lemuir Pvt Ltd (“DHL” for short) as a going concern
for consideration of Rs. 54.73 crore. The assessee offered such receipt to tax
as capital gain. The A O did not accept this stand of the assessee. He noticed
that in the deed of transfer of business, there was a clause that the assessee
would not involve into carrying on the same business. According to the A.O,
therefore, in view of such non-compete clause in the agreement, the receipt could
be the assessee’s income in terms of section 28(va) of the Act and
consequentially taxable under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business and
Profession’.

The
assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the
entire sum of Rs. 54.73 crore was not paid for non-compete agreement. He
apportioned the total consideration into two parts namely a sum of Rs. 4.5
crore was attributed to the non-compete clause, the rest i.e Rs. 50.23 crore
(after deducting costs) was treated as the assessee’s capital receipt taxable
as capital gains. On this apportionment, the CIT(A) arrived at after taking
into consideration the profit of the firm for last two years from said
business.

Revenue
carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, upheld the view of the CIT(A) inter alia observing that the
assessee had under the agreement in question transferred the entire business
and the non-compete clause was merely consequent to the transfer of business.

Being aggrieved with the
ITAT order, the revenue filed an appeal to the High Court. The Court observed
that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 54.73 crore could never have been
attributed to the non-compete clause contained in such agreement. The CIT(A)
applied logical formula to arrive at the apportionment between the value for
the sale of business and of non-compete clause in the agreement. No perversity
is pointed out in this approach of the CIT(A). The assessee which was engaged
in highly specialised business, transferred the entire business for valuable
consideration. Non-compete clause in such agreement was merely a part of the
understanding between the parties. What purchaser received under such agreement
was entire business of the assessee along with non-compete assurance. We notice
that Clause (va) of section 28 pertains to any sum whether received or
receivable, in cash or kind, under an agreement, inter alia for not carrying
out any activity in relation to any business or profession. A non-compete agreement
would therefore fall in this clause. Proviso to said Clause (va), however,
provides that the said clause would not apply, to any sum whether received or
receivable, in cash or kind, on account of transfer of right to manufacture,
produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business or
profession which is chargeable under the head Capital Gains. The assessee’s
receipt attributable to the transfer of business was correctly taxed by the
CIT(A) as confirmed by the Tribunal as giving rise to capital gain. It was only
residual element of receipt relatable to the non-compete agreement which was
brought within fold of Clause (va) of section 28 of the Act. In the result, the
appeal was dismissed.