← 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

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

therefore, were not shown separately in the financial statements of the appellant for any financial years. Screenshot of accounting entry and copy of Business Transfer Agreement are placed at pages 1374A-13740 of the PB Vol II. In the books of VIL and Idea group, amount paid to appellant

Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 906/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 80I

year 2016-17, the assessee purchased a solar division from its holding company i.e. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd under slump sale transfer vide business transfer agreement dated 23/02/2017. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.138,87,12,930/-. Later ... solar power division from its holding company, by way of slump sale as an ongoing concern basis. He has referred to the business transfer agreement dated 23/2/2017 and submitted that as per clause (2) and (2.1) of the agreement, the nature of the transaction has been specified as slump sale

Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 80I

year 2016-17, the assessee purchased a solar division from its holding company i.e. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd under slump sale transfer vide business transfer agreement dated 23/02/2017. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.138,87,12,930/-. Later ... solar power division from its holding company, by way of slump sale as an ongoing concern basis. He has referred to the business transfer agreement dated 23/2/2017 and submitted that as per clause (2) and (2.1) of the agreement, the nature of the transaction has been specified as slump sale