India Capital Markets P Ltd. v. DCIT

56 SOT 32Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#6760 most cited

What is India Capital Markets P Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on intangible assets, including customer contracts and non-compete fees, if they are acquired for a consideration and fall within the scope of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

India Capital Markets P Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 32(1)(ii) · intangible assets · depreciation · non-compete fee · customer contracts · commercial rights

Also reported as

145 ITD 111

Issues it is cited on

commercial rightsblock of assetssection 32(1)intangible assetsdisallowance under section 14asection 32section 14asection 263section 26transfersection 143person

Judgments citing India Capital Markets P Ltd. v. DCIT

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

…on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva T and D India Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 421 (Del) (ii) Skyline Caterer (P) Ltd (2018) 118 TTJ 344 (Mum) (iii) Weizmann Forex Ltd (2013) 21 Taxmann.com 99 (iv) India Capital Markets (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum) 14. The assessee further submitted that in the case of CIT vs Areva T and D India Ltd (2021) 129 taxmann.com 55 (Madras) where the depreciation on non- compete fee has been allowed. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible as…

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

…on the following decisions in this regard – (i) Areva T and D India Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 421 (Del) (ii) Skyline Caterer (P) Ltd (2018) 118 TTJ 344 (Mum) (iii) Weizmann Forex Ltd (2013) 21 Taxmann.com 99 (iv) India Capital Markets (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum) 14. The assessee further submitted that in the case of CIT vs Areva T and D India Ltd (2021) 129 taxmann.com 55 (Madras) where the depreciation on non- compete fee has been allowed. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee that the customer contracts and non-compete fee falls within the definition of 'intangible as…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.CIT-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot CST No. 1406 MK Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCV2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal.AR Respondent by : Shri H.N Singh.DR Date of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.01.202…

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Unit No.701 & 702, 7th Floor Income Tax-2(2)(1) Room No.545, 5th Floor Kaledonia, Sahar Road Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 069 M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 PAN/GIR No.AACCV1726H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri K.C.Selvamani Date of Hearing 17/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3685/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013…

DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Stat Engineering and Electronic Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 694/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 694/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit-1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Engineering Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Star Electro Mechanical Road, Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Ground Floor, Kasturi Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Blue Star Engineering बिधम/ Dcit-1(1)(1) Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.) Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Ground Floor, Kasturi Road, Mumbai-400020. Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By: Shri Tharian Oommen (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 06.11.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 694/M/2019 A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen (DR)
Section 115JSection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…and ITA. No.5242/Mum/2017 for the 2013-14 dated31.12.2019 and ITA. No. 252/Mum/2017 for the A.Y.2012-13 dated 29.08.2018 wherein this ground has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of India Capital Market P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum). The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. No law contrary to the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the CIT(A) has been produced before us. Since the issue has squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is quite correct which is not liable to be interfere with…

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Ltd. (Formerly Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6412/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5242/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Star Engineering & Income Tax-1(1)(1), Electronics Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. (Formerly M/S Blue Star Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Electro Mechanical Limited) Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Vs. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecb1558M

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…tion 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) relying on the Tribunal’s decision of India Capital Market Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum.) 6 | P a g e Blue Star Engineering of Electronics Ltd. ITA Nos.5242/Mum/2017 & 6412/Mum/2016 allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in Para 5.11 as under: - “5.11 I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant. In the instant case, the appellant has claimed depreciation on the customer contracts being inta…

M/S Vistaar Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…c duly supported with the judicial decisions on the issue of interest free funds, we rely on the decision of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under (Head Note) : Similarly in the case of SKS Micro Finance Limited Vs. DCIT 145 ITD 111 (Hyd.-Trib.) where the Tribunal has observed at para 28 as under : “ 28. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. It is the contention of the assessee that the interest free loans were advanced due to commercial expediency and for the purpose of business. It is the further contention of the assessee that…

V.A. Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2434/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Va Advisory Services Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. 10Th Floor, Vishwakarma Arcade, Majura Gate, Surat – 395 002. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodam – Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Dileep Kumar – Sr.Dr 12.10.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 11.05.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat(In Short

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

…(SC), the assessee has purchased the cliental business as a right that could have used as a tool to carry on business and the assessee is eligible for depreciation on goodwill u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act as held by ITAT in India Capital market Pvt Ltd., vs. DCIT 56 SOT 32 Mumbai. VA Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Surat /ITA No.2434/Ahd/2015/SRT/AY.2011-12 Page 7 of 9 6. Per Contra, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Lower Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The perusal of slump sale agreement dated 07.04.2008 p…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1099/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Huntsman International (India) Acit 10(1)(1), Private Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Light Hall B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 Huntsman International (India) ACIT 10(1)(1), Private Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Light Hall B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072 PAN AAACH9149J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri F V Irani Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das Date of Hearing :04.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2018 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 17.01.2017…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 252/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.252/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Electro 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Mechanical Ltd. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr Ar) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak & Ashish Jhawar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred Was Justified In Holding That Rights Acquired For Acquisition Of Customer Contracts Falls Within The Expression "Any Other Business A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & AshishFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32

…ative of the assessee has relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question and also argued that the finding of the CIT(A) has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of India Capital Markets P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 32 (Mum), Brembo Brake India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 68 SOT (Pune) & CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). Before going further, we deemed it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “4.4 I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, this is…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir E (Erstwhile ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 633/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities Vs. Acit Cc 3, Mumbai – 400 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower 020 Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit- Cc-3(3), Mumbai - Vs. M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities 400020 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Vijay Mehta Revenue By Mr. Saurabh Rai

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…of Capital Markets (P) Ltd., DCIT 56 SOT, 32 and directed the AO to allow depreciation claim of Rs.54,06,776/-. The observation of CIT(A) is as under:- I have very carefully considered the matter. I find in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 56 SOT 32, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT had considered a similar matter. In the said case, the assessee, a share broker had purchased entire retail clientele business of a company for a certain consideration. The assessee therein booked these expenses as purchase of goodwill and claimed depreciation therein under. s. 32(1)(ii). It was held that the purchase of cl…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5637/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 Pan: Aaach9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S.N.SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 32Section 32(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 PAN: AAACH9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant Vs. M/s.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 PAN: AAACH9149J ...... Appellant Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar Revenue by : Sh…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56 SOT 32(Mum) ii. SKS Micro Finance Ltd v DCIT 145 ITD 111(Hyd) iii. DCIT v Weizman Forex Ltd 51 SOT 525 (Mum) iv. Jyoti (India) Metal Industries P Ltd vs Asst. CIT and in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been held, ―A perusal of the provision of section 32(1)(ii) suggests that certain intangible assets on which depreciation could…

ACIT CC 22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5788/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56 SOT 32(Mum) ii. SKS Micro Finance Ltd v DCIT 145 ITD 111(Hyd) iii. DCIT v Weizman Forex Ltd 51 SOT 525 (Mum) iv. Jyoti (India) Metal Industries P Ltd vs Asst. CIT and in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been held, ―A perusal of the provision of section 32(1)(ii) suggests that certain intangible assets on which depreciation could…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Central Circle 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56 SOT 32(Mum) ii. SKS Micro Finance Ltd v DCIT 145 ITD 111(Hyd) iii. DCIT v Weizman Forex Ltd 51 SOT 525 (Mum) iv. Jyoti (India) Metal Industries P Ltd vs Asst. CIT and in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been held, ―A perusal of the provision of section 32(1)(ii) suggests that certain intangible assets on which depreciation could…

A.C.I.T. C.C.22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7463/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56 SOT 32(Mum) ii. SKS Micro Finance Ltd v DCIT 145 ITD 111(Hyd) iii. DCIT v Weizman Forex Ltd 51 SOT 525 (Mum) iv. Jyoti (India) Metal Industries P Ltd vs Asst. CIT and in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been held, ―A perusal of the provision of section 32(1)(ii) suggests that certain intangible assets on which depreciation could…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7328/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56 SOT 32(Mum) ii. SKS Micro Finance Ltd v DCIT 145 ITD 111(Hyd) iii. DCIT v Weizman Forex Ltd 51 SOT 525 (Mum) iv. Jyoti (India) Metal Industries P Ltd vs Asst. CIT and in the case of India Capital Markets (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been held, ―A perusal of the provision of section 32(1)(ii) suggests that certain intangible assets on which depreciation could…