M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT

132 TTJ 129Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#3985 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 366,339 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/251/2007HC 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:4115-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/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…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/223/2002HC 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:4120-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/246/2005HC 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:4116-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/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…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

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…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

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…

Pitney Bowes India Pvt Ltd

ITA/784/2011HC Delhi30 Nov 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 37

…ITA No.784 of 2011 Page 1 of 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.784 of 2011 Reserved on: 13th September, 2011 % Pronounced on: 30th November, 2011 PITNEY BOWES INDIA PVT. LTD. . . . APPELLANT Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . .RESPONDENT Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHA…

Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-784/2011HC Delhi30 Nov 2011
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 37

…ITA No.784 of 2011 Page 1 of 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.784 of 2011 Reserved on: 13th September, 2011 % Pronounced on: 30th November, 2011 PITNEY BOWES INDIA PVT. LTD. . . . APPELLANT Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . .RESPONDENT Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHA…