• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


ITAT Considers Business Income from Termination Compensation Received by Piramal Enterprises

Mumbai ITAT Order for MS Piramal Enterprises Limited

Piramal Enterprises faced a setback by categorizing the compensation of Rs. 92.7 crores from termination as ‘business income’ instead of ‘capital gain’, The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concluded.

In the related year, the taxpayer company obtained Rs. 92,76,62,688 from Roche Diagnostics Gmbh ( RDG ) of Germany as per the settlement agreement for the termination of agency, distribution, and manufacturing rights granted by RDG via an agreement on 30.06.1997. The taxpayer reported this amount as capital gains for tax purposes.

Taxpayer M/S Primala Enterprises Limited representative Mr Priyank Gala, challenged the CIT(A)’s determinations, claiming that the amount obtained was for the transfer of a capital asset, i.e., the business, and therefore should be taxed as capital gains. He argued that the compensation was towards the transfer or termination of business rights under the AMDA 1997 agreement.

Mr. P.D. Chogule, representing the Revenue, noted that the amount was obtained via taxpayer for the termination of the agency, invoking Section 28(ii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and claimed that it compensated the taxpayer for abstaining prospective future profits from the agency business of RDG products.

Mr. Chogule’s opinion for the provision under Section 28(va) claims that the current provisions were restrictive and that compensation correlated to business and employment must be levied to tax, which was considered unsustainable via the ITAT. It was not the case of the taxpayer before the AO or CIT(A) that the compensation was for business loss or employment.

The two-member bench, S. Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant member ) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial member) ruled that the compensation the taxpayer received from RDG in the out-of-court settlement was business income and not capital gains that the taxpayer claimed.

The provisions under section 28(ii)(c) read with section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act were applicable. Accordingly, the decision of CIT(A) to ensure the addition of Rs. 92,76,62,688 as business income was maintained.

Consequently, the ITAT ruled against the taxpayer.

Case TitleM/s. Piramal Enterprises
Limited
Case No.ITA No.3706/M/2010
Date11.01.2024
Assessee ByShri Priyank Gala, A.R.
Revenue ByShri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R.
Mumbai Bench ITAT’s OrderRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

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

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software