non-compete fee — 164 case laws

M/S. Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Coprate Cricle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital in nature. The assessee has also alternatively claimed that, in case if the non alternatively claimed that, in case if the non-compete fee is not allowed compete fee is not allowed as revenue expenditure, and is treated as capital in nature, then i as revenue expenditure ... noted that, the assessee has debited sum of Rs.2,37,07,960/- paid by way of non paid by way of non-compete fees under the h compete fees under the head ‘miscellaneous expenses’ and therefore, the AO required the assessee to ‘miscellaneous expenses’ and therefore, the AO required

Karthick Chilaka, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 947/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Section 263Section 28

deal with the merits. Since the issue involved in both the cases are identical, we are of the opinion that the issue of non-compete fees if any has to be first decided in the hands of the brother of the Assessee Mr.Kamal Chilaka who was the key managerial person ... Assessee on the mO-: ITA No.947/Chny/2023 valuation of the shares and the correctness of assigning a component out of the sale consideration as non-compete fees especially in the absence of separate agreement shall be left open to be agitated before the First Appellate Authority. With the above directions

Samkeet Arya Homes LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 365/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Sunjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 68

assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by considering the non-compete fees amounting to Rs. 38,00,000/- to be a capital expenditure without considering the nature of the expenditure. 2. The Ld. AO has erred ... there was no concrete evidence of the successful projects led by Shri Paras Pandit to justify the large payment made to him as non-compete fee. Further, the lack of any valuation process or other evidence indicating that the payment of Rs. 76,00,000/- was genuinely beneficial

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

discussion with the authorized representative, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the additions on account of disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs.9,44,78,811/-, (ii) disallowance of cost of production of TV serials and programmes which are claimed as revenue expenditure of Rs.106 ... order dated 24.03.2016 wherein the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the issues of depreciation on non-compete fee and depreciation on Film Software Library and allowed the claim of assessee company on account of disallowance of cost of production of TV serials and programmes which are claimed