Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i) Voltas Ltd. v/s DCIT, [1998] 64 ITR 233 (Mum.);
ii) Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 19 taxmann.com 106 (Bang.)(TM); and Parle Products Ltd.

iii) CIT v/s Fernhill Laboratories and Industrial Establishment, [2013] 33 taxmann.com 533 (Bom.);

28. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. From the facts on record it is evident, on 26th March 1997, the assessee had entered into an asset purchase agreement with Oral-B Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., an affiliate of GDOPL, under which certain assets and machinery capital of producing Tooth Paste, Gels, Tooth Brushes and Mouth Rinses were purchased from the assessee. Similarly, the assessee entered into an agreement with Gillette Co., Boston, for use of certain trademarks relating to Oral Care and Oral Hygiene products. Under the aforesaid agreement, the assessee had also agreed to not compete with either GDOPL or any of its affiliate in respect of oral care and oral hygiene products. For transfer of trademark, the assessee received certain consideration. Similarly, the assessee also received consideration towards non-compete fee. Similar agreements were also entered into by another affiliate of the assessee viz. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. with GDOPL on 26 th March 1997. Though, the assessee had claimed the amount received for trademark and towards non-compete fee as capital receipt not chargeable to tax,in view of the fact that the cost of acquisition of such assetsare unascertainable.however, the Assessing Officer by treating the amount Parle Products Ltd.