Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 19 November, 2018
th
Decided on: 20 March, 2019
+ ITA 465/2003
COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Sr. Standing
counsel with Mr. Pankaj Sinha,
Advocate.
versus
SUNIL LAMBA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Devika Jain &
Mr. Anant Mann, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
J U D G M E N T
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
1. This appeal by the Revenue, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
th
1961 („Act‟) is directed against an order dated 7 May, 2003 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the ITA No. 3006/Del/2000 for
the Assessment Year (AY) 1995-96.
Questions of law
th
2. While admitting this appeal on 7 February, 2005 the following questions
of law were framed by this Court:
ITA No.465/2003 Page 1 of 12
“1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that
assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT, under Section 263 of the
Act, was illegal?
2. Whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the two
agreements regarding non-compete and trademarks?”
Background facts
3. The background facts are that Shri P.L. Lamba, the deceased father of the
Respondent Assessee, along with Shri I.K. Ghai, commenced business in the
name of „Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream in Delhi in 1942. As the
business grew, Shri Ghai and Shri Lamba promoted another firm Pure Ice
st
Cream with effect from 1 October, 1956 for manufacturing Ice Cream at
Bombay and for marketing it under the name „Kwality‟.
4. The firm got the trade mark „Kwality‟ registered in January, 1957. Later
the firm Pure Ice Cream was converted into a private limited company under
the name of Pure Ice Cream (1967) (Pvt.) Ltd. The trade mark „Kwality‟
registered in the name of the aforementioned company was licenced to the
Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co., New Delhi as registered user.
5. The Respondent Assessee was admitted to the benefits of the partnership
i.e. Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co., under the partnership deed dated
th
12 September, 1967. The Lamba group were represented by Shri P.L.
Lamba, the Assessee and other members of the family. Shri Ghai and others
represented the Ghai group in the partnership. It is stated that the firm was
st
reconstituted from time to time and was finally dissolved on 31 December,
1977. Upon dissolution, the Lamba group was allocated to the following
ITA No.465/2003 Page 2 of 12
units:
a) Kwality Restaurant at New Delhi
b) Kwality Ice Cream Company at New Delhi
c) Gaylord Restaurant at Bombay.
th
6. A fresh deed of partnership was executed on 15 February, 1978 amongst
the members of the Lamba Group in order to carry on the business in the
name and style of Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream (1978) Company. This
was to run the Gaylord Restaurant at Bombay, Kwality Restaurant at New
Delhi and Kwality Ice Cream Company at New Delhi.
th
7. On 27 April, 1980 an Indenture was signed by the Ghai Group and
Lamba Group for the final separation of the businesses including the
assignment of use of trademarks. Clause 5 of the agreement read as under:
"5) That pursuant to the said dissolution Unit Kwality
Restaurant, New Delhi; Kwality Ice Cream Co., New Delhi and
Gaylord Restaurant, Bombay allotted to be taken over by the
Second Group shall belong to the Second Group together with
exclusive right to use the said names Kwality restaurant and
Kwality Ice Cream in and around New Delhi together with right
to use the said name Gaylord Restaurant in and around Bombay
as the name of the business together with assets and liabilities.. "
8. As part of the bifurcation agreement it was agreed between the parties that
the mark „Kwality‟ would be assigned by Ghai group for exclusive use in
the territories of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Orissa. The Lamba
Group could exclusively use the market „Kwality‟ in Jammu & Kashmir,
ITA No.465/2003 Page 3 of 12
Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and the Union
Territories of Chandigarh, Delhi and Kerala.
9. In the previous year (PY) in 1994-95 relevant to AY 1995-96 the
Assessee entered into two agreements as under:
th
i) The Non-Competition Agreement dated 14 October, 1994 with Brooke
Bond Lipton India Limited (BBLIL) in terms of which the Assessee was
restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling or distributing ice cream,
ice lollies, dairy and non-dairy frozen desserts in lieu of receipt of non-
compete fee of Rs. 1 crore.
ii) The Deed of Assignment of „Kwality‟ trademark with Digital Securities
Private Limited (DSPL) in terms of which the Assessee received Rs.1.85
crores out of total consideration of Rs.3.70 crores.
10. The Assessee filed a return for the AY 1995-96 disclosing an income of
Rs. 26,67,520/-. In Part (IV) of the return concerning „Income Exempt From
Tax‟ the Assessee disclosed the receipt of the non-compete fee of Rs. 1
crore from „BBLIL‟ as well as Rs.1.85 crores from DSPL on account of
assignment of the „Kwality‟ trademark.
The Assessment Order
11. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) scrutinised the return and passed an
st
Assessment Order dated 31 December, 1997 under Section 143 (3) of the
Act accepting the returned income and without making any additions. An
audit objection was subsequently raised qua the said assessment to the effect
ITA No.465/2003 Page 4 of 12
that pointing out that the Assessee had not brought to tax the aforementioned
two receipts. The AO, however, defended the assessment and pointed out
that the claim of the Assessee that the aforementioned receipts were
exempted from tax, was supported by judgments of the Supreme Court. It
was further pointed out that the amendments in law making such receipts
taxable were not retrospective and did not apply in the AY in question.
Proceedings under Section 263
th
12. A notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 13 March, 2000 was issued
by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) asking the Assessee to explain
why the order of the AO be not modified or enhanced as it was erroneous or
prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Assessee filed a detailed reply
th
on 27 March, 2000 pointing out to the CIT that the two receipts had been
duly disclosed to the return and that they were not liable to tax in terms of
the law applicable during the AY in question. The Assessee contended that
intangible assets like trademark, brand names etc. were self-generated and
st
not acquired from others could be brought to tax only with effect from 1
April, 1998.
th
13. The CIT passed an order dated 29 March, 2000 setting aside the
assessment order and observed as under:
"1. Firstly, the trade mark of "Kwality" is not a self-generated asset of
Shri Sunil Lamba, he was not at all associated with the trade mark
when it was initially registered.
2. Secondly, M/s Pure Ice-cream Co., M/s. Pure Ice-cream Co. Pvt.
Ltd. and M/s. Gaylord Pvt. Ltd. are separate legal entities quite
distinct from Shri Sunil Lamba. He has acquired rights over the trade
ITA No.465/2003 Page 5 of 12
marks from these concerns. It is not clear whether any consideration
has passed for acquiring the trade mark rights by Sh. Sunil Lamba.
Even if no consideration was paid to these concerns for acquiring the
trade mark rights, the cost of acquisition is clearly determinable for
the purpose of computation of capital gains.
I am not giving any direction regarding the other issue of the receipt
of Rs. 1 crore on non-compete agreement. Since I am setting aside the
order of the assessing officer, this issue may be decided as per law."
Impugned order of the ITAT
14. The Assessee filed appeal before the ITAT being ITA No.
th
3006/Del/2000 which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 7
May, 2003. The ITAT came to the following conclusions:
(i) Although the AO may not have recorded a specific finding in that regard,
it could not be said that he had not applied his mind to the facts and details
filed before him.
ii) The view taken by the AO was in accordance with the decisions of the
High Court and the ITAT and therefore the assessment could not be said to
be erroneous. View taken by the AO was plausible in law.
(iii) The non-compete fee was not taxable in law. It agreed with the
Assessee that the trademark was „self generated‟ i.e. acquired with the
Assessee for no consideration. Such payment became taxable under Section
55(2) (a) of the Act by virtue of the amendment introduced by the Finance
st
Act, 2001 with effect from 1 April, 2002. Therefore for AY 1995-96 such
payment could not be subjected to tax.
ITA No.465/2003 Page 6 of 12
(iv) The CIT had not validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the
Act.
15. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned
Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned
Senior counsel for the Assessee.
Case of the Revenue
16. The case of the Revenue is that as far as the consideration of Rs. 1.85
crores received by the Assessee from DSPL is concerned, it was for transfer
of trademarks, brand names and the goodwill. In other words, it was not for
self-generated assets but for assets that had been acquired by the Assessee
over the period from different firms and companies. It was submitted that
any transfer from a firm or a limited company to a partner or a substantial
shareholder is a transfer under Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, it was
incorrect on part of the Assessee to contend that the trademarks, brand
names and goodwill were „self generated‟ or that they could not be assigned
any cost of acquisition on the date of transfer. It was submitted that the
Assessee could not have acquired the above brand name without any cost.
He had simply chosen not to disclose such cost. It is pointed out that on the
th
date of its previous transfer on 14 October, 1994 through a deed, the
transferred assets were not characterised as „self-generated‟.
th
17. Mr. Manchanda argued that the deed of assignment dated 14 October,
1994 revealed that it was not merely the trademarks and brand names that
had been transferred to DSPL. These were, together with goodwill, in
ITA No.465/2003 Page 7 of 12
relation to the trademarks and brand names. Both trademarks and brand
names belonged to business of the Assessee. Any goodwill associated also
st
belonged to the business. Goodwill of a business was taxable from 1 April,
1989 onwards. Inasmuch as the Assessee had not segregated his
consideration by showing how much of the Rs.1.85 crores was attributable
to trademarks and brand names and how much to the goodwill, the entire
consideration was taxable.
Question No.2
18. The Court proposes to discuss the submissions qua Question No.2 first.
been considered. It must be mentioned that during the pendency of the
present appeal, the Assessee was permitted to bring on record documents
which would go to show how the trademark and brand names had got
th
transferred from 1942 onwards. This compilation was filed on 6 January,
2016.
19. These documents show that in 1942 trademark and brand name was with
the Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Company constituted by Shri Ghai
and Shri Lamba. Factually the trademark was self-generated by Shri P.L.
Lamba, the Assessee‟s father and Shri Ghai. The devolvement of said mark
on the Assessee was in his capacity as partner of Kwality Ice Cream
Company. These vested in the Assessee for no consideration and were
subsequently assigned by the Assessee to DSPL for a sum of Rs. 1.85
crores.
20. The agreement between the Assessee showed that K (North) i.e. the
ITA No.465/2003 Page 8 of 12
Assessee and his father were the registered proprietor of trademarks
„Kwality‟ (with its distinctive get up in logo and colour scheme). K (North)
or its nominees had been in continuous and uninterrupted use of the
trademark for over 50 years without any objection or claim or counter claim
from any other party in respect of the territories mentioned.
21. As held in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) any
amount received towards assignment of a self-generated asset would not be
liable to tax in the absence of the cost of acquisition.
22. Section 55(2) (a) of the Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2001 with
st
effect from 1 April, 2002 whereby there was deemed to be a nil cost of
acquisition in respect of a self-generated trademark. Consequently, from AY
2002-03 onwards any amount received for assignment/transfer of a
trademark would be taxable under „capital gains‟. This amendment was
clearly prospective. As held in CIT v. Associated Electronics & Electrical
Industries (Bangalore) (P.) Ltd. (2016) 65 Taxmann.com 253 (Karnataka)
and Birla Sunlife Asset Management Co. v. DCIT (2011) 128 ITD 64
(Mum) , payment received for assignment of a self-generated trademark
prior to AY 2002-03 was not liable to tax.
23. This Court in Hilton Roulunds Limited v. CIT (2018) 255 Taxman 209
(Del) held that “an exclusive right to use, to the exclusion of the owner,
though termed as license, could be a transfer of title in the mark.” Any
amount received for such transfer could not be said to be a revenue receipt.
Likewise the non-compete fee received from BBLIL was in the nature of a
ITA No.465/2003 Page 9 of 12
capital receipt. This resulted in sterilization of the profit making apparatus of
the Assessee. Such payment has been held by the Supreme Court in Guffic
Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 602 (SC) to be a capital receipt and
not a revenue receipt. Even the amendment of Section 28 (5) (a) of the
st
Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1 April, 2003 bringing such receipts to
tax as business income, was held in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. (supra) to be
prospective. Till AY 2003-04, it was treated as a capital receipt.
24. Both receipts i.e. the „non-compete fee‟ and the payment towards
assignment of trademark were disclosed by the Assessee in Part-IV of the
return for the AY in question. With the trademark being „self-generated‟ and
not acquired for consideration, the cost of acquisition of the said marks
st
could not be substituted as the market value as on 1 April, 1981 so as to
attract „capital gains.‟ In PNB Finance Limited v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75
(SC) , the Supreme Court observed as under:
"19. Before concluding, we may state that in this case, section
55(2) did not operationalize. Under section 55(2), fair market
value as on 1- 1-1954could have substituted the figure of cost of
acquisition provided the figures of both "cost of acquisition" and
"fair market value as on 1- 1-1954" were ascertainable. The letter
dated 30-9-1970 does not indicate the choice. Even the working
done by the Assessing Officer based on capitalization of last 5
years' profits would give the Enterprise Value of the Undertaking
and not the cost of acquisition. Hence, section 55(2) was not
applicable."
25. The Court accordingly rejects the plea of the Revenue that the non-
compete fee and the consideration for the assignment of the mark were both
capital receipts and could not have been brought to tax. Question No.2 is
ITA No.465/2003 Page 10 of 12
accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
Question No.2
26. The second issue pertains to assumption of the jurisdiction by the CIT
under Section 263 of the Act. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000)
243 ITR 83 (SC) it was held that jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act
cannot be assumed in respect of a „debatable issue‟. This was reiterated in
CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) .
27. The view taken by the AO on the nature of the non-compete fee and the
consideration for assignment of trademark was a plausible one. There was
no occasion for the CIT to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
th
In PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (decision dated 5
September, 2017 of this Court in ITA No.705/2017) it was held that the CIT
had to come to a prima facie finding as regards the merits of an issue before
seeking to set aside the same and remanding it to the AO for de novo
adjudication. That is absent in the case on hand. Question No.1 is
accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
Conclusion
28. Both questions are accordingly answered in favour of the Assessee
against the Revenue.
ITA No.465/2003 Page 11 of 12
29. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA J.
MARCH 20, 2019
mw
ITA No.465/2003 Page 12 of 12