BEACON HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court held such expenditure to be revenue in nature, allowable under Section 37(1). However, since the assessee had claimed depreciation over several years and sought to continue this due to practical difficulties, the Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation, considering it revenue-neutral.
What were the facts?
The appeals concern Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The core issue is the claim of depreciation on non-compete fees, treated as an intangible asset by the assessee. The assessee had executed non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and paid fees, which were treated as capital expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation on non-compete fees paid by the assessee is allowable as a deduction, and whether brought forward losses of an amalgamating company can be claimed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sharp Business System v. CIT50 citing254 CTR 233 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, HON’BLE & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER RENU JAUHRI :
The above captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as assessee against the orders u/s 250 of The Income Tax Act, 1961
1867_DEL_2020_Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd VS acit 2574_DEL_2024_DCIT VS Beacon Higher Educa
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)
- Msrdc Sea Link Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4…ITA 3693/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Baleshwar Kharagpur Expressway Limited… vs PCIT-6, MumbaiITA 5714/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Bank of India, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 2810/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026