Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT

26 Taxmann.com 268High Court2012#3890 most cited

What is Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payment of non-compete fees for the purpose of business, protecting business interests, and not resulting in an enduring benefit, is allowable as revenue expenditure.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT · 26 Taxmann.com 268 · non-compete fee · revenue expenditure · business purpose · protecting business interest · section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Ltpu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1089/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e, which has not been disputed by the revenue, the same should be treated as a revenue expenditure and entire expenditure shall be allowed in the year in which the payment was made. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd – 26 Taxmann.com 268 (Madras), wherein it has been held that, “where assessee made payment as non-compete fee for the purpose of business of assessee, expenditure was on revenue count”. Another case place before us was, in the case of Asianet Communications Vs CIT – 96 Taxman.com 399 (Mad), held that, “where non-compete fee paid by the assessee was for the…

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

…1 DSP Merrill Lynch Limited Assessment Year :1996-97 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND 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" /…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1142/CHNY/2018[214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…