← All Phrases

“depreciation on non-compete fee”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(ii)55 judgments

The decision most relied on for depreciation on non-compete fee is Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (332 ITR 602), cited in 66 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on depreciation on non-compete fee

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
332 ITR 602 · 2011 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

Compensation received for a non-compete covenant or for not carrying on a specific business activity is a capital receipt and not liable to tax as business income.

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.

Sharp Business System v. CIT III
27 Taxmann.com 50 · 2012 · High Court
53
citing judgments

A non-compete fee, being a capital expenditure, is not allowable as a deduction from income and does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT
350 ITR 324 · 2013 · High Court
44
citing judgments

A deduction for interest expense on borrowed funds used for interest-free advances to group companies is permissible only if the assessee establishes these advances were from surplus funds. The decision further clarifies eligibility for depreciation on intangible assets like non-compete fees, software, goodwill, and commercial rights under section 32(1)(ii), often arising from a slump sale.

CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd.
48 Taxmann.com 349 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

A payment for non-compete fees creates a commercial right and is considered an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd.
120 TTJ 983 · 2009 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on non-compete fees when a businessman pays another to restrain them from competing, as this constitutes an intangible asset.

Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.
122 TTJ 394 · 2009 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fees if they represent the acquisition of a business or commercial right, rather than an identifiable intangible asset.

Judgments citing depreciation on non-compete fee

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Kilpauk

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

endorse 19 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 the submission of the assessee and held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In result, we dismiss grounds No.2 & 3 of revenue

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

endorse 19 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 the submission of the assessee and held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In result, we dismiss grounds No.2 & 3 of revenue

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

endorse 19 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 the submission of the assessee and held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In result, we dismiss grounds No.2 & 3 of revenue

Metro Tyres Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposing penalty on addition of Rs. 21,89,970/-on account of disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case ... case and in law, no penalty is leviable on account of addition of Rs. 21,89,970/- account of disallowance on of depreciation on non-compete fees. Depreciation on non- compete fees is a debatable issue and as such no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

WCIL and, therefore, should be covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench. The Ld.AR further submitted that the depreciation on non-compete fee which is disallowed by the Assessing Officer is also covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Serum

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

WCIL and, therefore, should be covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench. The Ld.AR further submitted that the depreciation on non-compete fee which is disallowed by the Assessing Officer is also covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Serum

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

consideration. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee submitted a paper book and a chart containing issues. The ld.AR submitted that the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee has been allowed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2001-02 in ITA IT(TP)A No.84 to 86/CHNY/2018

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

consideration. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee submitted a paper book and a chart containing issues. The ld.AR submitted that the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee has been allowed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2001-02 in ITA IT(TP)A No.84 to 86/CHNY/2018

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

consideration. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non-compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee submitted a paper book and a chart containing issues. The ld.AR submitted that the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee has been allowed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2001-02 in ITA IT(TP)A No.84 to 86/CHNY/2018

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 449/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Technologies Ltd. :: 7 :: 5. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is depreciation on non-compete fee. The AO has disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground that the non- compete fee/good will is not depreciable asset, eligible ... expenditure on acquisition of goodwill, is eligible item for deduction u/s.35D(2) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed depreciation on non-compete fee, by following the decision of ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years. 5.1 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that this

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 121/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Technologies Ltd. :: 7 :: 5. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is depreciation on non-compete fee. The AO has disallowed depreciation on non-compete fee on the ground that the non- compete fee/good will is not depreciable asset, eligible ... expenditure on acquisition of goodwill, is eligible item for deduction u/s.35D(2) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed depreciation on non-compete fee, by following the decision of ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years. 5.1 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that this

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act”. 20. “Erred in not granting consequential depreciation on non-compete fees as the same is held to be capital in nature in AY 2002-03”. 4 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited ... preceding years and are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R that the issue as regards the allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. A perusal of the orders of the Tribunal for the preceding years reveals that

Abbott Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 570/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.570/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Abbott Healthcare Private Limited., 4, Corporate Park, Sion -Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aaack-3935-D ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/ Lokesh Shah/Kiran Belkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Monica Khare सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/For Respondent: Smt. Monica Khare
Section 254(2)Section 32Section 32(1)

claim of the assessee claim regarding additional ground as discussed above.” 3. The assessee raised additional grounds of appeal in respect of depreciation on Non-Compete Fee u/s. 32 of the Act. The additional grounds of appeal raised by assessee read as under:= “a) On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have followed the judicial precedents regarding admissibility of depreciation on non-compete fees relied upon by the Assessee before him, including the orders passed by jurisdictional benches of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Piramal

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

deprecation on non compete fee. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in not granting consequential depreciation on non-compete fee paid in period relevant to assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal of assessee for assessment year ... find that the Co-ordinate Bench in appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 (supra) has considered the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee. The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on non- compete fee. For the sake of completeness the relevant extract

Kdl Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3372/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 14ASection 254(2)

case and in law Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation on non-compete fees of Rs. 1,10,74,219/- as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances