Blaze & Central (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

120 ITR 33High Court1979#3762 most cited

What is Blaze & Central (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

Payments made to ward off business rivalry or acquire an existing business are capital in nature. This is especially true if the benefit obtained is for a specified period and involves the acquisition of business in a specified area.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2020.

Also referred to as

Blaze & Central (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · non-compete fee · relinquishment of right · ward off business rivalry · capital expenditure · acquisition of business · enduring benefit

Also reported as

1 Taxmann 546

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Blaze & Central (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…e/appellant derived on account of its agreement with L&T was that the latter, a previous joint-venture partner to the extent of 26% was kept put out of the market for a period of 7 years. In this context, the decision in Blaze & Central (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 33/1 Taxman 546 (Mad.), the decision of the Madras High Court is instructive. The assessee had entered into an agreement with one Saraswati Publicities by which the latter agreed to part with its business of film exhibition shots and not to compete with the assessee in business within a specified territory for nine years. The Supreme Court's decision…

Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 2845/MUM/2002[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2845/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Jcit-Special Range-22 Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai बनाम/ One Bkc, G Block Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 05 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. DR
Section 80

…76 though the facts that case were different. It is also in consonance with a view of Allahabad High Court in the case of Neel Kamal Talkies V CIT 87 ITR 691 is also with the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Blaze and Central Private Limited V CIT 120 ITR 33 though in that case also facts were different.' Thus the courts have held that any money paid to ward off the competition is capital in nature and more so if the benefit is acquired without any restriction in the form of time limits. Hence the claim of the assessee that amount paid to DSP & Co. should 8 DSP Merrill Lynch Limited Assessment Year :…