Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co.

165 ITR 63High Court1987#1722 most cited

What is Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co. authority for?

Compensation paid for a restrictive covenant not to carry on a similar business for a specified period (e.g., up to five years) is treated as a separate transaction from the transfer of business assets and goodwill. Such payments are an allowable expense if the restrictive period is not of an enduring capital nature.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT · 165 ITR 63 · non-compete fee · restrictive covenant · capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure · test of enduring benefit · section 10(2)(xv) · business transfer agreement · allowable expense · relinquishment of right · enduring benefit · going concern

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of righttest of enduring benefitsection 10(2)(xv)non-compete feebusiness transfer agreementsection 2(31)slump salesection 51going concernsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)beneficial owner

Judgments citing Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co.

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…buting Co of India Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 496 (Calcutta High Court); Vijayshree Realty Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO Ward 9 (3) (2007 TIOL 444) (Mumbai ITAT); CIT v Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. (259 ITR 212) (Rajasthan High Court); CIT vs GD Naidu and Others (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras), CIT vs Sivananda Steels Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitt…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…buting Co of India Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 496 (Calcutta High Court); Vijayshree Realty Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO Ward 9 (3) (2007 TIOL 444) (Mumbai ITAT); CIT v Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. (259 ITR 212) (Rajasthan High Court); CIT vs GD Naidu and Others (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras), CIT vs Sivananda Steels Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitt…

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD,PUDUCHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 175/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.175/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2012-2013 Eaton Power Quality Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.2, E.V.R. Street, Pondicherry Circle, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Puducherry- 605 111. [Pan Aaacc 6943R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Suresh Guduri, Irs, Jcit. : 27.09.2023. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Suresh Guduri, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 37

…. The said order of the Honble ITAT was passed of considering various case laws including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Coal Shipments Pvt. Ld. (82 1TR 902) 0cd the decision of High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs GD Naidu (165 ITR 63). Hence, depreciation on Non-compete fee and other related expenditure rightly held as not allowable in the assessee's case’’. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated the facts that during the 5. financial year 2011-2012 for commercial consideration, assessee acquired certain assets pertaining to f…

VIRAJ PROFILES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…re". Now the question is whether the restrictive convenient which is operative only for a period of five years can be said to be of enduring in nature. This aspect of the matter has been decided by the Madras High Court in CIT v/s Late G. Naidu & ORs., [1957] 165 ITR 63 (Mad.), wherein Their Lordships observed and held as under: "Held, that so far as the cash compensation paid by the new partners referable to the assets and goodwill of the firm was concerned, the cash took the place of the assets of the partnership and the compensation paid for restrictive covenant not to carry on similar business for a period o…

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…hat the restraint is for a period of two to three years and not more than five years, in our opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly taken the view that the payment is allowable. Such a view was also taken by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Late G.D. Naidur & Others (165 ITR 63. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the revenue’s ground.” 7.1 The Ld.AR further submitted that similar issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC) and that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has distinguished the decision in the c…

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited..................................………………….............Appellant Block-EP, Plot-Y-14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCP 9181 H] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata...........................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Smt. C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Smt. K.M. Gupta, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Goulen Hangs…

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…(Delhi HC) g) Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. [2003] (259 ITR 212) (Rajasthan HC) h) Calcutta Credit Corporation [1987] (166 ITR 29) (Calcutta HC) i) Garg Engineering Co [1999] 235 ITR 451) (Allahabad High Court) j) CIT vs GD Naidu and Others (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras HC) k) Nuchem Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] (47ITD 487) (Delhi ITAT) II) Rejection of claim made by the Appellant by the AO cannot result in imposition of penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322…

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

….03.2009 . he also submitted that to the same effect are the following decisions: - i. CIT vs. Lahoty Bros: 19 ITR 425 (Cal) ii. CIT vs. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd : 58 ITR 241 (PC) iii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Late G D Naidu and Ors : [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad) iv. Asianet Communications Ltd. vs. CIT: 257 Taxman 473 (Mad) v. PCIT vs. Six Sigma Gases India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1259 of 2016 (Bom) DCIT vs McDowell & Co Ltd : 291 ITR 107 (Kar HC) vi. Champion Engineering Works Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I : [1971] 81 ITR 273 (Bom) vii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Bowrisankara Steam…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[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

….03.2009 . he also submitted that to the same effect are the following decisions: - i. CIT vs. Lahoty Bros: 19 ITR 425 (Cal) ii. CIT vs. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd : 58 ITR 241 (PC) iii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Late G D Naidu and Ors : [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad) iv. Asianet Communications Ltd. vs. CIT: 257 Taxman 473 (Mad) v. PCIT vs. Six Sigma Gases India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1259 of 2016 (Bom) DCIT vs McDowell & Co Ltd : 291 ITR 107 (Kar HC) vi. Champion Engineering Works Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I : [1971] 81 ITR 273 (Bom) vii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Bowrisankara Steam…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

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

….03.2009 . he also submitted that to the same effect are the following decisions: - i. CIT vs. Lahoty Bros: 19 ITR 425 (Cal) ii. CIT vs. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd : 58 ITR 241 (PC) iii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Late G D Naidu and Ors : [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad) iv. Asianet Communications Ltd. vs. CIT: 257 Taxman 473 (Mad) v. PCIT vs. Six Sigma Gases India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1259 of 2016 (Bom) DCIT vs McDowell & Co Ltd : 291 ITR 107 (Kar HC) vi. Champion Engineering Works Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I : [1971] 81 ITR 273 (Bom) vii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Bowrisankara Steam…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2961/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2960/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2958/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2957/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2810/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2809/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2808/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2807/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…to the said U.Mohanrao as by way of non-compete fee. The assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure. It is a fact that the assessee did not write off this amount in the books of accounts. However, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late G.D.Naidu and others) (Mad.) and 87 ITD 541 (Sri Annapurna Gowri Shankar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT), the assessee contended that it was entitled to deduction. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said U.Mohanrao was the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director of…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4