Mahak Sing v. ITO (ITAT, Del)

127 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#6348 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

non-compete feeintangible assetsrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)transferprescribedcompanyindiabusinessinteresttotal income

Judgments citing Mahak Sing v. ITO (ITAT, Del)

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CRICLE -2(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1405/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

…r to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in this, we gainfully refer to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in this, we gainfully refer to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) wherein it was held that payment of non herein it was held that payment of non-compete fees is capital in compete fees is capital in nature. The observations of this Tribunal relevant to the facts of the nature. The observations of this Tribunal releva…

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COPRATE CRICLE-2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

…r to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in this, we gainfully refer to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in this, we gainfully refer to the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (127 ITD 1) wherein it was held that payment of non herein it was held that payment of non-compete fees is capital in compete fees is capital in nature. The observations of this Tribunal relevant to the facts of the nature. The observations of this Tribunal releva…

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD,PUDUCHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 175/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.175/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2012-2013 Eaton Power Quality Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.2, E.V.R. Street, Pondicherry Circle, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Puducherry- 605 111. [Pan Aaacc 6943R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Suresh Guduri, Irs, Jcit. : 27.09.2023. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Suresh Guduri, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 37

…PA and NCA suggests that NCA was very much a part of the entire part of the purchase of business of GE India by the assessee. As relied on by the AO, the decision of the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tecumsch India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT |127 ITD 1| and decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sharp Business System India Lid. Vs DCIT |133 ITD 275| are squarely applicable to the instant case. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. wherein protection fees by the assessee to prevent Competition for the period of I…

VIRAJ PROFILES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…udgment in the case of Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 204 Taxmann 333(Del), and ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgments in the case of Sharp Business System v. DCIT [2011] 15 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi) and Tecumesh India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi) (SB). We find that these cases are distinguishable on facts :- Pitney Bowes (Supra): In this case, the taxpayer had acquired going concern on lumpsum consideration. Under the Business Transfer Agreement, there was no bifurcation of the consideration for non- compete and other tangible and intangible assets so acquired. Thus, the taxpayer ha…

M/S H. K. INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD ,VARANSI vs. JOINT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANSI

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…d in (2010) 126 ITD 89(Del-trib.) d) Appellate order passed by Pune-tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sunil M Kasliwal, reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281(Pune-trib.(TM)) e) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Mehak Singh v.ITO, reported in (2010) 127 ITD 1(Del-trib.) f) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works Private Limited v. CIT, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 399(Jharkhand- HC). The ld. CIT DR distinguished the decisions relied upon by ld. counsel , as under: a) Sunil Kumar v. Addl. CIT(supra)- It was submitted by ld. CIT-DR that in this c…

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…O also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Auto Piston Mfg. Co. Ltd. V CIT [2013) 38 taxmann.com 61 (Punjab & Haryana) to support his reasoning for imposition of penalty. In addition, he also relied upon the following decisions: • Mahak Singh v ITO 127 ITD 1 • Hindalco Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd v Addl. CIT, 49 taxmann.com 309 • Vasan Healthcare (P) Ltd v Addl. CIT 103 taxmann.com 26 (Mad) • CIT v Samora Hotels (P) Ltd. 19 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi) • CIT v Sunil Sugar Co. 85 taxmann.com 254 (All) • Nandhi Dhall Mills v C1T 61 taxmann.com 97 6. The AO also observed that there was a clear di…

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ied on the , and ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgments in the case of judgments in the case of Sharp Business System v. DCIT [2011] 15 taxmann.com 144 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi) and Tecumesh India (P.) Ltd. Tecumesh India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi) (SB) [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi) (SB). We find that these cases are distinguishable on facts We find that these cases are distinguishable on facts :- Pitney Bowes (Supra) Pitney Bowes (Supra): In this case, the taxpayer had acquired going concern : In this case, the taxpayer had acquired going concern - on lumpsum consideration. Under the Bu…

HARSHIT FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi)(SB) The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the authorities below have rightly held that assessee’s case does not fall under the proviso to Section 28(va) of the Act. He relied upon the orders of authorities below. He further submitted that the case laws referred by the learned counsel of the assessee are not applicable on the fa…

HARSHIT FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4989/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi)(SB) The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the authorities below have rightly held that assessee’s case does not fall under the proviso to Section 28(va) of the Act. He relied upon the orders of authorities below. He further submitted that the case laws referred by the learned counsel of the assessee are not applicable on the fa…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…if carried out in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the same would attract the provisions of section 271D of the Act. There was a discussion on the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahak Sing vs. ITO (ITAT, Del) 127 ITD 1 relating to the mens rea issues. Eventually, the Addl. CIT levied the penalty of Rs. 495,23,61,634/- u/s 269SS of the Act within the meaning of section 271D of the Act. Further, depending on the nature of credit, journal entries are summarized into 6 categories, namely (i) assignment of debit balance to a group company (4.75 Crs); (ii) lender assig…

ACG PAMPAC MACHINES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7765/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7765/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Acg Pampac Machines Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम/ 1001, Dalamal House, 10Th Floor Central Circle-42 Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacp-4134-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Manish Shah, Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Manish Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…fee was contained in the agreement for transfer of business. Since the facts are similar the ITAT, Mumbai followed the Delhi Tribunal Special Bench decision in the case of Tecumseh India Private Ltd. 10.3 The facts in the case of Tecumseh India Private Ltd. [127 ITD 1] and Ind Global Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. are identical to the facts in the case of the appellant company. The appellant paid non-compete fee to Indtech Systems and Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd. pursuant to the business transfer agreement dated 27.11.2009. The Indtech Systems and Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd transferred the business to the appellant company on…

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

…CIT vs. M/s.Coal Shipments Ltd (82 ITR 902) (SC), Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 792 (SC), CIT vs. JK Synthetics Ltd (309 ITR 371 ) and ITAT, Delhi, Special Bench in the case of Tecumseh India (P) Ltd vs Addl. CIT (2010) 127 ITD 1/5 ITR (Trib) (150) (Delhi)(SB). The ITAT while holding the expenditure being capital in nature, rejected the plea that it was eligible for depreciation as an “intangible asset” u/s.32(1)(ii). Amongst other reasons assigned, it was held that non compete agreement between two parties is like personal service contract which is unassignable and cannot…

FORBES & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7349/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Ground Floor, Forbes Bldg. Vs. M.K. Road Charanjit Rai Marg Mumbai 400020 Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milin ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha
Section 271(1)(c)

…pete fee paid to ex-Directors, whether revenue or capital is a debatable issue. According to the learned A.R. for the assessee even after the decision of the Special Bench of the 8 M/s. Forbes & Company Ltd. ITAT Delhi in the case of Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. (127 ITD 1) (Del), certain subsequent decisions have held that non-compete fee is revenue in nature like, CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 249 (Del), etc. It was prayed that merely because the assessee’s contentions and claims are not accepted, penalty cannot be levied. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the dec…