Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 602Supreme Court of India2011#1722 most cited

What is Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Compensation received for a non-compete covenant or for not carrying on a specific business activity is a capital receipt and not liable to tax as business income.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · non-compete fee · capital receipt · not liable to tax · Section 28(va) · Section 37 · business income · restrictive covenant · intangible asset · depreciation on non-compete fee

Also reported as

10 Taxmann.com 105198 Taxmann 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 37Section 135Section 144BSection 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete feesection 41(4)depreciation on softwaresection 43(6)(c)section 2(13)section 43(6)section 28(i)section 28(iv)section 55(2)block of assetscommercial rights

Judgments citing Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…e eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act? 14.3. In this connection, Mr. Dwarakanath submits that Section 32(1) allowing depreciation on tangible and intangible assets must be read holistically. Insofar payment of non-compete 6 (2011) 332 ITR 602 7 (2023) 458 ITR 593 8 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5114 37 fee is concerned, it certainly results in creation of an intangible asset. There are two aspects of allowance of depreciation in respect of intangible assets. Firstly, it should fall within one of the enumerated categories i.e. know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses, fra…

M J ASSOCIATES,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 785/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…strictive covenant. Therefore, he proceeded to hold that the compensation received other than the purpose of placing restrictive covenant is revenue in nature, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gufic Chem P. Ltd. v. CIT 332 ITR 602. Accordingly brought to tax the compensation received. 7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, after analysing various judicial precedents and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd. v. CIT 236 ITR 903 held that the compensation receiv…

M J ASSOCIATES,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 784/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…strictive covenant. Therefore, he proceeded to hold that the compensation received other than the purpose of placing restrictive covenant is revenue in nature, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gufic Chem P. Ltd. v. CIT 332 ITR 602. Accordingly brought to tax the compensation received. 7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, after analysing various judicial precedents and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd. v. CIT 236 ITR 903 held that the compensation receiv…

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4432/MUM/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriPorus Kaka A/w Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253

…le asset' and if the same is depreciable asset for the benefits u/s 32 of the Act. There is no dispute on the capital nature of the impugned 'non compete fee' in view of the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602/198 Taxman 78/10 taxmann.com 105, which is adopted in the judgment in the case of Hari Shankar Bhartia v. CIT [2011] 203 Taxman 6 (Mag.)/15 taxmann.com 113 (Cal.). In any case, both the parties accepted the fact that the said fee is capital in nature. On going through the facts, arguments, submissions, documents available before us and the orders…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

…ncome Tax Act. Without Prejudice, even if it is construed that sum of Rs 11 crore (or part thereof ) was received on account of non-compete covenant under the agreement then too it is capital receipt not liable to tax. Apex Court in case of Gufic Chem (P) Ltd 332 ITR 602(SC) has held that not to carry on a business is capital receipt not liable to tax. In Rohit Chand reported in 306 ITR 242(Oel) it is held that receipt of non-compete fee may not alter the structure of assesse's activity" ... but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income .... " Kindly a…

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

…ncome Tax Act. Without Prejudice, even if it is construed that sum of Rs 11 crore (or part thereof ) was received on account of non-compete covenant under the agreement then too it is capital receipt not liable to tax. Apex Court in case of Gufic Chem (P) Ltd 332 ITR 602(SC) has held that not to carry on a business is capital receipt not liable to tax. In Rohit Chand reported in 306 ITR 242(Oel) it is held that receipt of non-compete fee may not alter the structure of assesse's activity" ... but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income .... " Kindly a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 636/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDRAM FINANCE LOMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 81/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-A. LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 80/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1, CHENNAI

ITA 79/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

ITA 9/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

ITA 8/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

ITA 7/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 28/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 27/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 26/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…mbay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned action of the AO has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Guffic cum P ltd Vs.CIT – 332 ITR 602 (SC) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd Vs. CIT 26 Taxmann.Com 268 (Mad), wherein it is ruled that expenditure incurred towards payment of non-compete fee was allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 20.3 We heard the rival contentions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case a…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SPENCER BLDG.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/MUM/2023[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-2(2)(1) Lyka Labs Ltd. Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 30 Forjett Street, Grant Road (W), Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rketing, distribution and sale of product?” 4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in treating non-compete fees being capital receipt relying on Supreme Court Judgement in the case of GuffieChems Pvt. Ltd. 332 ITR 602, Rs.3,57,00,000/- Wintac Ltd. 306 ITR 614 (Karnataka) when facts of the cited case are distinguished to the case under consideration as assessee has not given any absolute right in the marketing, distribution and sale of products?” 4. The solitary grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is pertaining to the receipt of non compete fees of Rs.10…

SIEL LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1),,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 115J

…hat none of the lower authorities have doubted that the receipts are on account of restrictive covenants mentioned in the agreement. 14. The impugned quarrel is now well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Chem Pvt Ltd 332 ITR 602. The relevant findings read as under: “5. The position in law is clear and well settled. There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compen…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (332 ITR 602) — Cited in 66 Judgments | BharatTax