Sharp Business System India Lid v. DCIT

133 ITD 275Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19005 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Sharp Business System India Lid v. DCIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D ’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह,उपा"" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल,लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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"…

ACIT, Chennai vs. C.H.Robinson Worldwide Freight India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3444/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)

…dered as intangible asset to allow depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.1 The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating fact that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spark Business System Vs. CIT 133 ITD 275 and the Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2013) 41 taxmann.com 120 has very clearly held that non-compete fee is an item of capital in nature. However, it does not qualify for depreciation, because it is not in the nature of intangible asset which qualifies for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the…

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)

…the issue of non-compete fee. The appellant had cited some of the decisions which are in its favour. However, there are also contrary decisions available on the matter. The Delhi High Court vide its recent judgment in the case of Sharp Business System vs CIT 133 ITD 275 dated 05.11.2012 held that non- compete fees are neither allowed as revenue expenditure nor eligible for depreciation. Depreciation is not an issue in this case and the issue involved is allowance of non- compete fee. 10.2 The issue of allowability of non-compete fee varies from case to case. The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ind Global Corporate F…

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…ribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y 1999-2000 has examined the issue in detail by verifying the contract and all other ancillary and incidental issues and keeping in view the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Sharp Business System (India) Ltd., 133 ITD 275 came to a categorical finding that assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation on non-compete fee as it is not in the nature of an intangible asset as defined u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He submitted that in A.Y 2001-02 while allowing assessee‟s claim of depreciation on non-compete fee, Tribunal has neither correctly followed its own decision fo…