Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.

122 TTJ 394Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#5892 most cited

What is Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fees if they represent the acquisition of a business or commercial right, rather than an identifiable intangible asset.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. · 122 TTJ 394 · ITAT · non-compete fee · depreciation · intangible asset · commercial right · section 32(1)(ii) · section 41(2) · section 43(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153DSection 2(11)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 41(2)Section 43(6)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on non-compete feesection 24(1)section 41(2)rule 8d disallowancesection 2(1)non-compete feesection 14a disallowancesection 2(11)section 43(6)section 24(a)section 32(1)(ii)commercial rights

Judgments citing Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.

Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

ITA 4734/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5966/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 418/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5354/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5041/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5039/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5767/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2266/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1031/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 24Section 32(1)(ii)

…essee had placed reliance on the following judgment: a) ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 309 (Ahmedabad ITAT). b) Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 135 ITD 69 (Pune ITAT). c) Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 394 (Chennai ITAT). d) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ 983 (Chennai ITAT). e) CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222, this judgment deals with the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset, and not with the issue of non compete being an intangible, depreciable asset. ITA No. 1031/De…

M/S Arkema Peroxides India Ltd., Chennai vs. The Asstt. Comissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHNY/2020[2016-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)(ii)

…of the Hon'ble Chennai ITAT in the case of Real Image Tech. (P.) Ltd. (supra.). The Appellant also places reliance on the following judgments Radaan Media Works India Limited [ITA no. 2241 (Mds.) of 2006) (Chen. Trib) Medicorp Technologies India Ltd [2009) 30 SOT 506 (Chennai) Zydus Wellness Ltd [2017] 87 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) GE Plastics India Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 243 (Ahd.) Principle for application of judicial precedent Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens India Ltd. v. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 13 Taxman 146 (Born.) has laid down principle with respect to applying judici…

Kdl Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3372/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 14ASection 254(2)

…ustries (I) P Ltd ITA Nos 549 & 595/Hyd/2014. On perusal of records, it is observed that similar disallowance was made in AY 2010-11 which was subjected to appeal. CIT(A) 39, Mumbai relying on ITAT, Chennai decision in the case of Medicorp Technologies (2009) 30 SOT 506 (Chen Trib), held that depreciation is not allowable as non-compete fees and it was further stated by the CIT(A) that Kopran, with the prior permission of assessee, can divulge secret formula or process of manufacturing to anybody. Further, it is observed that there is no clause in the agreement as to what would happen if there is any breach. Citi…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…d. vs. ITO [118 TTJ 344] (Mumbai Tribunal) • Kotak Forex Brokerage Ltd. vs. ACIT [33 SOT 237] (Mumbai Tribunal) • ACIT vs. American Express Services India Ltd. [ITA 74/2003 ITA 75/2003 ITA 653/2005] (Mumbai Tribunal) • ITO vs Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [122 TTJ 394] (Chennai Tribunal) 29 M/s. Bayer CropScience Ltd. • ACIT vs Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. [120 TTJ 983] (Chennai Tribunal) • Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [123 TTJ 77] (Pune Tribunal).” 4.3 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the impugned assessment order. The product trial run expenditures are incurred by the appellant t…

Anjani Portland Cement Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1493/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

…d be allowed. In support of this submission, the assessee relied on the following cases: 8 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. 1. ACIT Vs. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd., 120 TTJ 983 2. ITO Vs. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd., 30 SOT 506 3. Bunge Agribusiness (India) (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 132 ITD 549 (Mum.) 4. M/s Scott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 1698/Mum/2003. 5. Serum Institute India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 147 Ui 594 (TM Pune) 10. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: 7.4 I have carefully considered the appel…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Anjani Portland Cement Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1305/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

…d be allowed. In support of this submission, the assessee relied on the following cases: 8 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. 1. ACIT Vs. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd., 120 TTJ 983 2. ITO Vs. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd., 30 SOT 506 3. Bunge Agribusiness (India) (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 132 ITD 549 (Mum.) 4. M/s Scott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 1698/Mum/2003. 5. Serum Institute India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 147 Ui 594 (TM Pune) 10. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: 7.4 I have carefully considered the appel…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.C. Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 4308/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 55(2)(a)

…Objection. 3 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the order of the Revenue Authorities. We find that the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Medicorp Technology India Ltd. (122 TTJ 394) and ACIT vs. Rea Image Tech. Pvt. Ltd. (120 TTJ 983) are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. In this case non compete fee sounds a negative. However, so far as the seller is concerned, he is selling his business right. Business right implies right to carry on any business in the market place. This is a recognized right. We note th…

M/S. Agarwal'S Eye Hospital Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2279/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 32

…ew found support in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd (2011) (231 ITR 192) as also the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s, Medicorp Technologies (India) Ltd (2009) (30 SOT 506) (Chennai). 13. Finally in the case of M/s. Sharp Business System v. CIT (supra) the decision of the tribunal was affirmed on all the counts. The Hon’ble High Court held that such payment of non compete fee to ward off competition had to be treated as being in “capital” and held that the deduction towards non compete fee could not be allowed as i…

Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 289 to 293/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2009-10 Vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1) / Addl.CIT, M/s. Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., 2nd Floor, 45, Okhla Industrial Range-14 / Income Tax Officer, Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi Ward -14(3), New Delhi PAN : AADCP3417C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv.; Manoneet Dalal, Adv.; Anubhav Jain and Anshul Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30.03.2017 Date of pronouncement 29.…

Incap Contract Manufacturing Services P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1469/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…facts, by not giving the Appellant the advantage of ruling held in the following cases: i) by The Honourable Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind.Ltd. ii) by the ITAT Chennai Bench in ITO Vs Medicorp Technologies India Ltd (2009) 30 SOT 506 5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts, by differentiating the Customer relationship rights (non-compete fees) from any other business or commercial rights. The Appellant has claimed depreciation on Customer Rights on the understanding that the consideration was paid to TVS Electronics Ltd to acquire certain commercial rights, includ…

Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. (122 TTJ 394) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax