← All Phrases

“business transfer agreement”

Capital GainsSection 50BSection 50B154 judgments

The decision most relied on for business transfer agreement is Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co. (165 ITR 63), cited in 66 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on business transfer agreement

Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co.
165 ITR 63 · 1987 · High Court
66
citing judgments

The case is cited for the principle that when a payment is made for a non-compete agreement which is part of a larger business transfer, the characterisation of the payment depends on whether it is for the enduring benefit of the business or for the loss of potential profits.

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT
41 Taxmann.com 120 · 2014 · High Court
58
citing judgments

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Ors. (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Mad), DCIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. 291 ITR 107 (Kar.), CIT v. Excel Industries Limited
122 ITR 977 · 1980 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to eliminate competition can be capital in nature, even if it is not simultaneous with the acquisition of a business. The enhancement of lease rent attributable to the elimination of competition is considered capital expenditure.

Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
65 Taxmann.com 288 · 2016 · High Court
42
citing judgments

When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji
35 ITR 148 · 1959 · Supreme Court
41
citing judgments

Compensation received for the cancellation of an agency agreement is a capital receipt if it impairs the assessee's trading structure or results in the loss of a source of income. However, if the contract is terminated in the ordinary course of business, the compensation may be considered a revenue receipt, with classification depending on the specific facts of each case.

Council), V.Damodaran v. CIT Kerala 64 ITR 26(Ker.), Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT
87 ITR 650 · 1973 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A payment made to eliminate competition is a capital expenditure, not a deductible business expense, as it secures an enduring benefit.

M/s Tecumesh India Private Limited v. Additional CIT
132 TTJ 129 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

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.

91 ITR 107 (Kar.), CIT v. Excel Industries Limited 122 ITR 995 (Bom.), Hindustan Times Ltd. v. CIT
127 ITR 74 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to eliminate competition is considered capital expenditure. This is particularly true when the expenditure creates an enduring benefit for the assessee.

Judgments citing business transfer agreement

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(11)Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.(supra). 9. The CIT(A) recorded that the assessee had entered into a business transfer agreement with THPL, whereby the 'value fashion' business was transferred as a going concern by way of slump sale for a consideration of Rs. 87.82 crores ... concern and not for individual assets or liabilities. He noted that no individual values were assigned to specific assets or liabilities in the business transfer agreement, except for valuations done for regulatory purposes such as stamp duty. 12. The CIT(A) further observed that the so-called goodwill claimed

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

pertaining to depreciation on intangible assets. 20. The relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2 different business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company Infosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the F.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit ... during the relevant assessment year, the Finacle and Edgeservices businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

pertaining to depreciation on intangible assets. 20. The relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2 different business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company Infosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the F.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit ... during the relevant assessment year, the Finacle and Edgeservices businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

pertaining to depreciation on intangible assets. 20. The relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2 different business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company Infosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the F.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit ... during the relevant assessment year, the Finacle and Edgeservices businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

pertaining to depreciation on intangible assets. 20. The relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2 different business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company Infosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the F.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit ... during the relevant assessment year, the Finacle and Edgeservices businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

pertaining to depreciation on intangible assets. 20. The relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2 different business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company Infosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the F.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit ... during the relevant assessment year, the Finacle and Edgeservices businesses were transferred by Infosys Limited to the appellant pursuant to a duly executed Business Transfer Agreement. The transfer was carried out on a going concern basis for a lump-sum consideration, and the appellant acquired all assets, liabilities, rights

Ravi Bansilal Darira, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5900/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2023-24 Ravi Bansilal Darira, Deputy Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Supreme Serenity, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), 16Th Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar Delivery S.O. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan : Aahpd2499M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vijay Jadhav For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)

entire business was transferred to a newly incorporated company, namely, Raviraj Process Controls Private Limited under a duly executed business transfer agreement and all assets, liabilities, contracts, customers and operations stood vested in the company. It was further submitted that the said company has filed its return of income

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

employee base in pages 10 & 11 of the impugned order. To verify the genuineness of the issue, the Id. CIT(A) examined the business transfer agreement and found satisfied the comprehensive schedules regarding distributors/dealers contract, share distributor/dealer contract, list of intellectual properties, etc. According

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

Anmol Antioxidants Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, by way of slump sale, for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-, pursuant to a Business Transfer Agreement dated 10.02.2020, with effect from 01.03.2020.As per the assessee, the consideration of Rs. 21 crores included Goodwill amounting ... After considering the replies filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the goodwill was created as a consequence of the Business Transfer Agreement and did not pre- exist in the books of either the transferor or the assessee. The Business Transfer Agreement did not specify any separate consideration

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

parent company, initiated a global divestment of its Technical Management business to a third party, namely Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd. Consequent thereto, a Business Transfer Agreement dated 28.10.2021 was executed between the assessee and its domestic associated enterprise, Lionheart Shipping Private Limited, for divestment of the function providing support services ... valuation assumptions, Rule 11UAE, etc., would arise for consideration. 7. The undisputed factual position relevant to section 92B is such that - i. The Business Transfer Agreement dated 28.10.2021 is between the assessee (Maersk Tankers India Private Limited) and Lionheart Shipping Private Limited, both incorporated and resident in India. This

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

justify the allowability of the claim of depreciation on manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts. In its response, the assessee placed reliance on Business Transfer Agreements, the Valuation Report of Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed ... sample copy of these contracts submitted that these contracts continued between the parties and the assessee beyond the period mentioned in the Business Transfer Agreements, which clearly demonstrates that the future economic benefits have flowed to the assessee from the impugned contracts. 13. From the perusal of the details

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

justify the allowability of the claim of depreciation on manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts. In its response, the assessee placed reliance on Business Transfer Agreements, the Valuation Report of Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed ... sample copy of these contracts submitted that these contracts continued between the parties and the assessee beyond the period mentioned in the Business Transfer Agreements, which clearly demonstrates that the future economic benefits have flowed to the assessee from the impugned contracts. 13. From the perusal of the details

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

justify the allowability of the claim of depreciation on manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts. In its response, the assessee placed reliance on Business Transfer Agreements, the Valuation Report of Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed ... sample copy of these contracts submitted that these contracts continued between the parties and the assessee beyond the period mentioned in the Business Transfer Agreements, which clearly demonstrates that the future economic benefits have flowed to the assessee from the impugned contracts. 13. From the perusal of the details

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

justify the allowability of the claim of depreciation on manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts. In its response, the assessee placed reliance on Business Transfer Agreements, the Valuation Report of Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed ... sample copy of these contracts submitted that these contracts continued between the parties and the assessee beyond the period mentioned in the Business Transfer Agreements, which clearly demonstrates that the future economic benefits have flowed to the assessee from the impugned contracts. 13. From the perusal of the details

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

assessee's business and the valuation of APDPL's equity shares as on the same date, coinciding with the execution of the Business Transfer Agreement, thereby casting further doubt on the bona fides of the transactions. The Ld.CIT(A) also recorded that the gift and settlement deeds were unsupported ... order of the Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) held that the net consideration of Rs.110.03 crores quantified under the Business Transfer Agreement (“BTA”) in connection with the succession of the assessee's sole proprietorship by M/s.Amar Prakash Developers Pvt. Ltd. inherently encompassed the purchase of the 'Royal

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

intangible assets. 7.1. On perusal of records, we find that during the relevant previous year, the Assessee had entered into two separate Business Transfer Agreements to acquire business undertaking of Global Foundries Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (GFEPL) and Aquifina Semi-Conductors India Pvt. Ltd. by way of slump sale transactions ... intangible assets along with the BTA entered by the Company: We humbly wish to submit that the company during AY 2020- 21 through Business transfer Agreement (BTA) had acquired business from the entities viz. Global Foundries Engineering Private Limited and Aquantia Semiconductors India Private Limited. Details of the same

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

Company had acquired the Studio 18 division of Network 18 Media & Investments Private Limited (formerly Network 18 Fincap Limited) under the Business Transfer Agreement dated 11 September 2007 on a going concern basis. As per the said agreement, the Company has paid a consideration ... acquired the “Studio 18” division of ‘Network 18 Media & Investments Pvt. Ltd.' on a going concern basis under slump sale. As per the business transfer agreement, the assessee had acquired the net assets at the value of Rs.3,44,00,309/- against the total consideration of Rs.4