M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT

132 TTJ 129Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#4035 most cited

What is M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT authority for?

Payments made to ward off competition, even to a rival dealer, are considered capital expenditure. It is not necessary for such fees to create a monopoly to be classified as capital in nature.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2012.

Also referred to as

M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT · 132 TTJ 129 · non-compete fees · capital expenditure · warding off competition · rival dealer · monopoly · business transfer agreement

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 53 / 2000HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4113-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 247 / 2002HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4121-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

CIT vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 842 / 2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4108-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1198 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4107-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1183 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4106-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO.P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1191 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4105-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

C.I.T vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 731 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4104-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 482 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4127-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 361 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4126-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO.P.LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1207 / 2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4125-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/731/2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4104-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1198/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4107-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1183/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4106-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/842/2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4108-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/45/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4122-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/50/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4123-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1207/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4125-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/257/2007HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4119-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/247/2002HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4121-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/253/2007HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…ees and merely eliminated competition for a limited period of 05 years, the expenditure could not be treated as capital in nature. This Court noted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT 132 TTJ 129 had taken a view that warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer, would constitute capital expenditure and that to hold them to be capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fees was paid to create monopoly 2012:DHC:4124-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2