Case Law Details
CIT Vs HCL Infosystems Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
The dispute concerned the taxability of ₹60.82 crore received by the assessee on termination of a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) during Assessment Year 1998-99 and whether the amount could be brought to tax under the head “Capital Gains.”
The assessee, HCL Infosystems Limited (formerly HCL Limited), was engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of computers and computer services. On 2 April 1991, it entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Hewlett Packard Inc. (HP), Hewlett-Packard India Pvt. Ltd. (HPI) and others to combine their computer manufacturing, marketing, servicing and sales activities in India. Under the JVA, the assessee was permitted to use the Hewlett Packard name and the joint venture company was renamed HCL Hewlett-Packard Ltd. The JVA was subsequently amended on 27 May 1991.
The JVA was terminated through an agreement dated 1 April 1997 after the parties acknowledged changes in the competitive landscape and decided to adopt HP’s worldwide distribution model. Under the termination agreement, HP paid ₹60.82 crore to HCL HP. During assessment under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer accepted that the compensation was a capital receipt but held that it was taxable under Section 55(2). The Assessing Officer treated the extinguishment of the bundle of rights under the JVA as a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47)(ii) and concluded that the capital receipt was chargeable under the head “Capital Gains.”
The assessee contended that termination of the JVA impaired its income-earning apparatus, sterilised its source of income and altered its business identity, making the compensation a capital receipt. It further submitted that the extinguished rights comprised an entire bundle of rights, including the exclusive right to market HP products using the HP trade mark, and not merely the right to manufacture. It argued that, at the relevant time, there was no statutory provision for determining the cost of acquisition of those intangible assets for computation of capital gains. The Revenue contended that the assessee had surrendered valuable manufacturing rights under the JVA and that, following the amendment to Section 55(2)(a) with effect from 1 April 1998, the cost of acquisition could be taken as nil for computing capital gains.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the assessment, agreeing with the Assessing Officer that the bundle of rights acquired under the JVA constituted a capital asset and that its extinguishment resulted in transfer giving rise to taxable long-term capital gains.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed that view. It observed that the assessee had been manufacturing computers under its own HCL brand even before the JVA and continued doing so after its termination. It therefore held that the assessee had not surrendered its right to manufacture computers. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment treating “a trade mark or brand name associated with the business” as a capital asset for computation of capital gains became effective only from 1 April 2002. Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, it held that where no cost of acquisition could be determined, capital gains tax could not be levied. The Tribunal accordingly held that the compensation received on termination of the JVA was not taxable under the head “Capital Gains.”
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. It held that the termination of the JVA impaired the assessee’s income-earning apparatus and sterilised its source of income, making the amount received a capital receipt. Examining the statutory amendments to Section 55(2)(a), the High Court noted that the expressions “or a right to manufacture” were inserted with effect from 1 April 1998, “or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business” with effect from 1 April 2002, and “or right to carry on any business” with effect from 1 April 2003. The Court observed that these amendments operated prospectively. It further held that, until those amendments, there was no machinery provision for determining the cost of acquisition of such intangible assets.
The High Court found that what stood extinguished upon termination of the JVA was an entire bundle of rights, including the right to manufacture HP computers using HP know-how, labels, trademarks and patents, while the assessee’s own right to manufacture HCL computers continued. It also observed that no attempt had been made to segregate the compensation attributable to the different constituent rights forming part of that bundle. According to the High Court, the Assessing Officer had incorrectly proceeded on the footing that the entire compensation represented consideration for surrender of the right to manufacture HP computers. The High Court concluded that, as Section 55(2)(a) stood during Assessment Year 1998-99, there was no provision for determining the cost of acquisition of the relevant intangible assets for computing capital gains. It therefore held that the receipt of ₹60.8095 crore was a capital receipt that could not be brought to tax under the head “Capital Gains” and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Revenue challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. After hearing the Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner and senior counsel for the assessee, the Supreme Court stated that, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment dated 21.12.2015. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, the question of law was kept open, and pending applications were closed. As a result, the Delhi High Court’s judgment remained undisturbed.
Also Read HC Judgment in this case: Compensation on termination of Joint venture agreement not liable to capital gain tax if received / accrued before 01/04/2003
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent(s)-assessee (s) and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. However, the question of law is kept open.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
