← 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

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

income. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is submitted that the appellant acquired Qualigens Fine Chemicals Division from Glaxosmithkline PharmaceuticalsLimited under business Transfer agreement (BTA) dated 26.7.2007 on a slump sale basis. On slump sale of Qualigens, amongst various assets as a part of the BTA, GSK also ... 114C(5) of the IT Act held as under : "The DRP has noted that the assessee company has claimed depreciation based on Business Transfer Agreements and valuation reports of Bansi S. Mehta & Co. Chartered Accountants. The claim of depreciation has been rejected on the ground that as per Business Transfer

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

owns and operates eighty six (86) windmills with an aggregate installed capacity of 25.5 MW of power. During the year, the assessee vide business transfer agreement [in short `agreement'] effective from 01.02.2015 had sold the entire windmill division on `slump sale' to its related entity, M/s Ashok Leyland Wind Energy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

lesser value than the value of the property in the books of OCPL. 3.4 The Id.CITIA) having found that as per the Business Transfer Agreement, the impugned property at No.71, Cathedral Road was subject of transfer to M/s Cool Cream Milano Pvt. Ltd. (CCMPL) on 1.8.2018 ought to have inferred ... Hence it appears that AO has ignored the abovesaid value in computing the capital gains on transfer of shares. 8.6.6 As per Business Transfer Agreement dated 01/08/2018 the FDL division has been transferred from OCPL to CCMPL, nominee of the appellant. It is also seen that the business has been

Delicatessen Engineering Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 835/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.835/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Delicatessen Vs. Dy. Cit. Engineering Services Circle- 8(1), Private Hyderabad Limited,Hyderabad Pan:Aagcd8678N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated,18/07/2024, In Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp-1 Bengaluru, Dated 26/02/2024 U/S 144C(5) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Relating To A.Y.2020-21. Page 1 Of 32

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

loss of Rs.4,32,29,914/-. The company brought Global Engineering Services (GES) Division of MW High Tech Project India (P) Ltd through business transfer agreement. The appellant has reported international transaction in respect of sale engineering design services to its AEs. The ALP of the international transaction ... agreement with Cyient Ltd by the erstwhile company and the same has been transferred to the appellant company by virtue of business transfer agreement. Therefore, observed that there is no merit in the argument of the assessee that it is one time and exceptional in nature and cannot be considered