← 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

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. facts placed before us, it is noted that the appellant had entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (‘BTA’) dated 08.11.2008 for purchase of CCB of M/s VEGL. The details of assets set out in the BTA also included the associated goodwill of the said ... noted to have claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Before the AO, the assessee is noted to have furnished copy of Business Transfer Agreement along with the copy of report prepared by Haribhakti Financial Services Pvt Ltd for valuation of retail business of BGFL. The AO however denied

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

valuation nor does it contain any specific reasons for adopting PECV method. Such consideration had been agreed upon, as reflected in. the Business Transfer Agreement, by and between the two parties, after deliberations and negotiations and there was no room what so ever for estimating the same or replacing ... remained that the actual transaction had taken place for a consideration of a sum of Rs.4,50,00,000 as per the said Business Transfer agreement. The Assessing Officer cannot lay down or determine the price for which the transaction should have taken place instead of such actual price. Further

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

June 24, 2022).  Thus, Assessee invested INR 55,00,00,000 into its subsidiary as Debentures.  On the same day, Assessee entered into Business Transfer Agreement with Aigua Sprinkler (wholly owned subsidiary) for the sale of “Sprinkler Business” on slump sale basis. (pages 909 to 924 of paperbook dated June ... learned AO / Hon’ble DRP. 42. Our attention was drawn to the relevant extracts of the stock purchase agreement, debenture subscription agreement and business transfer agreement indicating the underlying liabilities and obligations: As per para 2.13(b) of the stock purchase agreement provided “the aggregate direct, out-of-pocket cash