“non-compete fee”

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

import of raw material, sample spares parts and finished goods from AE; k) erred in considering depreciation on goodwill and amortization of non-compete fees as operating expense while calculating operating margin of tested party Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 without appreciating that depreciation/amortization ... goodwill and non- compete are exceptional/extraordinary in nature, l) erred in considering depreciation on goodwill and amortization of non-compete fees as operating expenses on the ground that as per transfer pricing provisions there is no mechanism under which an adjustment can be made to tested party, without appreciating that

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

import of raw material, sample spares parts and finished goods from AE; k) erred in considering depreciation on goodwill and amortization of non-compete fees as operating expense while calculating operating margin of tested party Navateur Electricals and Digital systems Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 without appreciating that depreciation/amortization ... goodwill and non- compete are exceptional/extraordinary in nature, l) erred in considering depreciation on goodwill and amortization of non-compete fees as operating expenses on the ground that as per transfer pricing provisions there is no mechanism under which an adjustment can be made to tested party, without appreciating that

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings is an additional claim which cannot be accepted. 6. Ground 6 - Deduction for non-compete fee payment 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and the learned DCIT ought ... just a proportion of the said amount as deductible revenue expenditure since the payees have discharged their tax liability on the non-compete fee paid by the Appellant by furnishing their return of income during the subject year. 7. Ground 7 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

allowed. Ground no. 9: Depreciation on intangible assets. 9. The assessee claimed depreciation on various intangible assets comprising commercial rights, customer relationships, and non-compete fees. During the relevant assessment year, although there were no fresh transactions pertaining to these intangible assets, depreciation was claimed on the opening written down ... Customer Contracts 4,59,084 Value Edge Customer Contracts 57,83,203 Customer Relationships 1,55,26,953 Non-Compete fees 2,19,02,344 Denali Customer Contracts 5,05,560 Total 16,73,21,294 11. The DRP allowed depreciation of Rs.4,59,084/- in respect

B.N. Exports, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S B. N. Exports Vs. Acit Range 20(1), Nightingale Chs, Bldg No. 2, Flat Piramal Chambers, Parel, No. 201, Second Floor, Hindustan Mumbai. Naka, Charkop Rd, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaafb1156E (Appellant) (Respondent)

However, according to the AR, both the concerns are different from each other although certain partners are common. According to the AR, the non-competence fees was paid in the best interest of the appellant firm as the price competition etc has been wiped off and the business ... assessee has recorded an income of Rs. 1.67 Crore. Therefore, in over view there is merit in the submission that the said non-compete fee is paid since M/s Deepal Corporation has stopped its export business which is being passed on to the assessee. It is accepted principle that

Marico Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir-35, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

different view. Therefore respectfully following the above decision, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made towards Miscellaneous Expenditure. Depreciation on Non-compete Fees 10. The assessee has acquired Trademark 'Meal Maker' from Plastomech during the Financial Year relevant to AY 2003-04. Along with the purchase of Trademark ... Plastomech to Sonic Biochem. The assessee in this regard made a payment of Rs. 1,55,66,250/- to Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing

M/S. Marico Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-35, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

different view. Therefore respectfully following the above decision, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made towards Miscellaneous Expenditure. Depreciation on Non-compete Fees 10. The assessee has acquired Trademark 'Meal Maker' from Plastomech during the Financial Year relevant to AY 2003-04. Along with the purchase of Trademark ... Plastomech to Sonic Biochem. The assessee in this regard made a payment of Rs. 1,55,66,250/- to Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing

The ACIT CC-35, Mumbai vs. M/S. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

different view. Therefore respectfully following the above decision, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made towards Miscellaneous Expenditure. Depreciation on Non-compete Fees 10. The assessee has acquired Trademark 'Meal Maker' from Plastomech during the Financial Year relevant to AY 2003-04. Along with the purchase of Trademark ... Plastomech to Sonic Biochem. The assessee in this regard made a payment of Rs. 1,55,66,250/- to Sonic Biochem towards non-compete fee. The assessee in the books of accounts capitalized the said amount as intangible asset and claimed deprecation on the same @ 25%. The AO while completing