Neel Kamal Talkies v. CIT

87 ITR 691High Court1973#18446 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2020.

Judgments citing Neel Kamal Talkies v. CIT

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nd resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) hav…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nd resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) hav…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nd resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) hav…

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 2845/MUM/2002[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2845/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Jcit-Special Range-22 Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai बनाम/ One Bkc, G Block Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 05 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. DR
Section 80

…in consonance with the view of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Biharilal Beni Prasad V CIT 35 ITR 576 though the facts that case were different. It is also in consonance with a view of Allahabad High Court in the case of Neel Kamal Talkies V CIT 87 ITR 691 is also with the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Blaze and Central Private Limited V CIT 120 ITR 33 though in that case also facts were different.' Thus the courts have held that any money paid to ward off the competition is capital in nature and more so if the benefit is acquired without any restriction in the form of time limits. He…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S EICHER LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1094/2006HC Delhi20 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 260A

…substantial reason for us to depart from the concurrent view already taken by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. ITA No.1094/2006 Page 5 of 10 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon Neel Kamal Talkies v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1973] 87 ITR 691. In that case, an agreement was entered into between the assessee and M/s Prakash Talkies Distributors. In terms of the agreement, M/s Prakash Talkies Distributors was prohibited from exhibiting any films at Virendra Talkies for a period of five years. Relying upon several decisions including Assam Bengal Cement Co. v. Commissioner of Incom…

Neel Kamal Talkies v. CIT (87 ITR 691) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax