Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 602Supreme Court of India2011#1721 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…non-compete fee, compensation received for the loss of agency, it has been held to be revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is held to be a capital receipt as held in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 332 ITR 602 (SC). Therefore, in order to determine the true nature and taxability of the receipt, we have to take into consideration the nature of business and agreements between the parties and then examine the purpose/object of receipt. It is only then that we examine whether a particular receipt is incidental to the main business or not. In effect, we hav…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…non-compete fee, compensation received for the loss of agency, it has been held to be revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is held to be a capital receipt as held in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 332 ITR 602 (SC). Therefore, in order to determine the true nature and taxability of the receipt, we have to take into consideration the nature of business and agreements between the parties and then examine the purpose/object of receipt. It is only then that we examine whether a particular receipt is incidental to the main business or not. In effect, we hav…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…non-compete fee, compensation received for the loss of agency, it has been held to be revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is held to be a capital receipt as held in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 332 ITR 602 (SC). Therefore, in order to determine the true nature and taxability of the receipt, we have to take into consideration the nature of business and agreements between the parties and then examine the purpose/object of receipt. It is only then that we examine whether a particular receipt is incidental to the main business or not. In effect, we hav…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…non-compete fee, compensation received for the loss of agency, it has been held to be revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is held to be a capital receipt as held in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 332 ITR 602 (SC). Therefore, in order to determine the true nature and taxability of the receipt, we have to take into consideration the nature of business and agreements between the parties and then examine the purpose/object of receipt. It is only then that we examine whether a particular receipt is incidental to the main business or not. In effect, we hav…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…wrongly recorded by the High Court in paragraph 19 – the correct date as per the letter dated 26.03.1998 is 31.03.1991, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove). 19. It only remains for us to point out the judgment in Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 4 SCC 254. In this case, the question set out by the Court is as follows: “Whether a payment under an agreement not to compete (negative covenant agreement) is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is the question which arises for determination in this case?” Here, the Court was dealing with an amount of INR 50 lakhs received by the appellant-asses…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” c) Grounds in ITA No.3…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” c) Grounds in ITA No.3…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” c) Grounds in ITA No.3…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” c) Grounds in ITA No.3…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

….02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 income. The Ld. Counsel filed a Paper book relying upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (supra), ACIT v. Savita Mandhana in ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010, Dr. B.V. Raju (supra), Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602/198 Taxman 78 (SC) and John D'Souza. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that similar ant held to be capital receipt in the case of the assessee by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.1151 and 1188 of 2008 and 800 of 2013 dated 04.07.2016[ PB-61 to 68] wherein after considering the decision of Hon`ble Supreme C…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

….02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 income. The Ld. Counsel filed a Paper book relying upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (supra), ACIT v. Savita Mandhana in ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010, Dr. B.V. Raju (supra), Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602/198 Taxman 78 (SC) and John D'Souza. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that similar ant held to be capital receipt in the case of the assessee by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.1151 and 1188 of 2008 and 800 of 2013 dated 04.07.2016[ PB-61 to 68] wherein after considering the decision of Hon`ble Supreme C…

Income Tax Officer (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3985/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer (Intl. Vs. Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Tax) – 4(1)(1), Rao 1729, Air India Building Flat No.602, Palm Paradise Nariman Point Palm Beach Road Mumbai – 400 021 Sector-17, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aafpr3259K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ssessee a non-resident British Company having no permanent establishment in India in term of Article-7 of DTAA. 8. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee having relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gufic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602/198 Taxman 78/10 taxmann.com 105, wherein it is held as under: "7. Two questions arose for determination, namely, whether the amounts received by the appellant for loss of agency was in normal course of business and therefore whether they constituted revenue receipt? The second question which arose before this Court was whether the amount receive…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Francis Wacziarg, New Delhi

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

ITA 4728/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs Francis Wacziarg, Circle-11(1), A-58, Nizamuddin East, Cr Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepw9332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, S/Shri Rishabh Jain, Manoj Piyush & Hardik Arora, Cas Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th June, 2012 Of The Cit(A)-13, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Business & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 12Th October, 2007 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.73,06,002/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…vi) Abhay Kumar S. Maskara vs. ITO, ITA No.3706/Mum/2012; (vii) Kurush N. Jungalwala vs. ITO, ITA No.2398/Mum/2008; (viii) Renu Roy vs. ITO, ITA Nos.491-496/Kol/2012; (ix) ACIT vs. Suresh Sethi, ITA No.763/Kol/2012; and (x) Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 602 (SC). 10. He accordingly submitted that since the ld.CIT(A) has passed the order deleting the addition which is in consonance with the judicial precedents, therefore, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the…

ITO, Ward-5(4) vs. Modern Home Care Products Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/DEL/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 55

…ught to tax has business income under section 28 (va) of the act by the Finance act, 2002 with effect from 1/4/ 2003. Therefore, prior to that same was not chargeable to tax. It was further stated that the honourable Supreme Court in case of Guffic Chem P Ltd 332 ITR 602 held that noncompeting consideration received by the assessee is chargeable to tax only with effect from 1/4/ 2003 and cannot be brought to tax in preceding assessment years. The assessee also relied on several decisions of the coordinate benches and the honourable High Court’s to support its contention. 17. On the question that same has not been…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3532/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit 10(1) बनाम/ M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Rna Corporate Park, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 C.O. No.143/Mum/2014 (I.T.A. No. 3532/Mum/2013) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. बनाम/ Dcit 10(1) Ltd. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, Rna Corporate Park, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm4036H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri L.N. MalikFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28

…transaction in connection with the payment of Rs.19,40,00,000/- on account of non competing the business of the appellant for another 2½ years. This controversy has also been adjudicated by the CIT(A) on the basis of the finding in case of Guffin Chem P. Ltd. 332 ITR 602 (SC). The relevant para has been produced above while enumerating the finding of the CIT(A) in which this type of transaction has been dealt as capital receipt. Depreciation has rightly allowed accordingly. Therefore in view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the said transaction has also been dealt by the CIT(A) in accordance wit…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Kwality Restaurant & Ice Cream

ITA/487/2004HC Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 147

…ng that the combined business did not face any competition in respect of marketing and selling of ice cream by the assessee. Counsel also sought reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 332 ITR 602 (SC). In the present case, as is evident from the factual discussion, the assessee along with several others entered into a strategic alliance agreement on 14.10.1994. This Court is not concerned with the stipulations in the strategic alliance agreement per se but rather with the other agreement entered into between the assessee and BBLIL…

Shilpa Hemant Pradhan, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 562/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.562/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shilpa Hemant Pradhan The Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 3(3), Room No.8, B Wing, 6Th C-1101, Sunglow, Shreeji Ville Vs. Complex, Almeida Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road Road,Panchpakhadi, Thane No.16-Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, (W),Mumbai – 400 601. Thane-400 604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypp 2433 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.C. Naniwadekar Department By: Shri Vikram Batra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri M.C. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Batra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28

…7034 (Mum) of 2012 , A.Y. 2010-11 dated 16.01.2013 wherein it was specifically held that Non- compete fee is liable to be taxed under business income u/s. 28(va). CIT(A) has also placed reliance on the law settled in the case of Giffic Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (332 ITR 602)(2011). No distinguishable material has been placed on record to deviate the finding of the CIT(A) in question. Moreover, the case of the assessee has been fully covered by the case of her husband (Hemant Prabhakar Pradhan) (in ITA No. 6794/Mum/2014, dt.13.07.2016 for AY 2011-12) (supra). Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we are of t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 966/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.966/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. W.S. Industries (India) Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Company Circle III(3) Porur, Chennai 600 116. Chennai-34 [PAN AAACW 0572E] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1840/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Assistant Commissioner M/…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. S.S.B.Industries Limited Now Amalgamated With M/S.W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 1840/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.966/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. W.S. Industries (India) Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Company Circle III(3) Porur, Chennai 600 116. Chennai-34 [PAN AAACW 0572E] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1840/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Assistant Commissioner M/…

Hemant Prabhakar Pradhan, Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Thane

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

ITA 6794/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6794/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hemant Prabhakar The Acit, Circle-1, बनाम/ Pradhan, R. No. 22, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Vs. C-1101, Sunglow, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16-Z Shreeji Ville Complex, Wagle Industrial Estate, Almeida Road, Thane-400 604 Panchpakhadi, Thane (W)-400 601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaspp 1387R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri M.C. Naniwadekar Shri Randhir Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Naniwadekar
Section 28Section 45(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 6794/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hemant Prabhakar The ACIT, Circle-1, बनाम/ Pradhan, R. No. 22, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Vs. C-1101, Sunglow, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16-Z Shreeji Ville Complex, Wagle Industrial Estate, Almeida Road, Thane-400 604 Panchpakhadi, Thane (W)-400 601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AASPP 1387R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appell…