Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ge Plastics India Ltd.

Introduction

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench “D” delivered a significant ruling in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. GE Plastics India Ltd. (ITA No. 483/Ahd/2007 & 573/Ahd/2007, dated 23rd March 2012). This consolidated order, authored by Accountant Member A. K. Garodia, addresses cross-appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for Assessment Year 2003-04. The decision is a landmark for its treatment of non-compete fees as depreciable intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and for clarifying the exclusion of sales tax from total turnover for computing deductions under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal’s reasoning reinforces the principle that in cases of conflicting judicial precedents, the view favorable to the assessee must be adopted, as established by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). This commentary provides a deep legal analysis of the core issues, focusing on the depreciation of non-compete fees, the treatment of sales tax in export deductions, and the capital vs. revenue nature of due diligence expenses.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, GE Plastics India Ltd., claimed depreciation on a non-compete fee of Rs. 4,55,40,000/- paid to JISL. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, holding that the non-compete fee was not an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) because it was a negative right (not carrying on business) and lacked the characteristics of ownership and transferability. The AO also disallowed certain consultancy and legal expenses of Rs. 24,54,480/- as capital in nature. Additionally, the AO included sales tax in the total turnover for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC, which the assessee contested. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the assessee’s claims on the non-compete fee and sales tax exclusion but upheld the disallowance of due diligence expenses as capital. Both parties appealed to the ITAT.

Reasoning of the Tribunal

The ITAT’s reasoning is structured around three primary issues: depreciation on non-compete fees, exclusion of sales tax from turnover, and the nature of due diligence expenses.

1. Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee (Section 32(1)(ii))

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision that the non-compete fee qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. The CIT(A) had reasoned that the right of absence of competition (non-compete right) is a capital asset capable of ownership and transfer. This was evidenced by the fact that the assessee subsequently transferred this right to M/s. G.E. Lighting India Pvt. Ltd. during amalgamation. The CIT(A) further held that the non-compete right is a “business or commercial right” of a nature similar to know-how, patents, copyrights, and trademarks under Section 32(1)(ii), as it is owned and used for business purposes.

The Revenue relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Srivatsan Surveyors (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 125 TTJ 286 (Chennai), where depreciation on a restrictive covenant was denied because it was considered a “right in persona” (personal right) rather than a “right in rem” (right against the world). The Tribunal acknowledged that the facts in Srivatsan Surveyors were similar—both involved payments for non-compete agreements. However, the Tribunal also noted a subsequent conflicting decision in ITO vs. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd., where depreciation on non-compete fees was allowed. Applying the settled legal principle from CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), the Tribunal held that when two views are possible, the one favorable to the assessee must be followed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s ground, affirming that the non-compete fee is a depreciable intangible asset.

2. Exclusion of Sales Tax from Total Turnover (Section 80HHC)

The Revenue argued that sales tax collected by the assessee forms part of the trading receipts and, therefore, should be included in the total turnover for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd vs. CIT and Sinclair Murray & Co P. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that sales tax collections are part of trading receipts. The Revenue also invoked Section 145A(b), which mandates the inclusion of taxes in the computation of profits.

The assessee, however, relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works (2007) 290 ITR 667 (SC). The Tribunal, without further elaboration, stated that it was “respectfully following” this judgment and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order. This implies that the Tribunal accepted the principle that sales tax, being a statutory levy collected on behalf of the government, should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of Section 80HHC, as it does not represent the assessee’s business receipts. The Revenue’s ground was rejected.

3. Capital vs. Revenue Nature of Due Diligence Expenses (Section 37)

The assessee claimed that expenses of Rs. 24,54,480/- paid to consultants and lawyers for due diligence and compliance checks were revenue in nature. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s disallowance, treating these expenses as capital. The Tribunal, in its order, noted the assessee’s reliance on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment but did not provide a detailed analysis. The summary indicates that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, holding the expenses as capital in nature. This aligns with the principle that expenses incurred for the acquisition of a business or asset (such as due diligence for a merger or acquisition) are capital in nature, as they bring enduring benefits to the business.

Conclusion

The ITAT’s decision in ACIT vs. GE Plastics India Ltd. is a significant precedent for taxpayers. The Tribunal’s ruling that non-compete fees are depreciable intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) provides clarity on the tax treatment of such payments, which are common in business acquisitions and restructuring. By following the assessee-favorable view in case of conflicting precedents, the Tribunal reinforced the principle of judicial consistency. The exclusion of sales tax from total turnover for Section 80HHC computations aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance in Lakshmi Machine Works, ensuring that export deductions are not diluted by statutory levies. However, the Tribunal’s affirmation that due diligence expenses are capital in nature serves as a reminder that costs directly linked to business acquisitions must be capitalized. Overall, this judgment offers valuable guidance for taxpayers with international operations and complex business transactions, emphasizing the importance of proper characterization of expenses and rights.

Frequently Asked Questions