← All Phrases

“non-compete fee”

Business IncomeSection 28(va)Section 28(va)164 judgments

The decision most relied on for non-compete fee is Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. (58 ITR 241), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-compete fee

Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd.
58 ITR 241 · 1965 · Reported
69
citing judgments

The test of enduring benefit for classifying expenditure as capital or revenue is not absolute; expenditure incurred for an enduring advantage may nonetheless be on revenue account, as the test can break down depending on the facts.

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.

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Coal Shipment Ltd.
82 ITR 902 · 1971 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Payments for non-compete fees or restrictive covenants are revenue expenditure if they are for a limited or uncertain duration and do not confer an enduring advantage to the assessee. The classification as revenue or capital depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Rohitasava Chand v. CIT
306 ITR 242 · 2008 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Receipt of a non-compete fee, even if it does not alter the assessee's business structure, impairs the carrying on of their activity, constituting a loss of a source of 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.

Alembic Chemical Works (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Auto Services (supra) and CIT vs. HMT Limited
203 ITR 820 · 1993 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the elimination of business competition, such as non-compete fees, is classified as either revenue or capital expenditure based on whether it creates an enduring benefit for the assessee's business.

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.

Judgments citing non-compete fee

Mawana Sugars Limited., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

case relating to ground no.1 raised by the assessee are, during the assessment proceedings, AO observed that a sum of Rs.11 crores being non-compete fee paid by ITC Agro Tech Ltd. (in short ‘ITC’) on account of agreement entered with them not to compete directly or indirectly with ... business is capital receipt not liable to tax. In Rohit Chand reported in 306 ITR 242(Oel) it is held that receipt of non-compete fee may not alter the structure of assesse's activity" ... but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent

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

Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT', for short]. We see no reason to interfere with the factual finding’’. 5.2 The ld. DR raising the issue of ‘non-compete fee’ contented that during AY 2012-13, the assessee acquired software division of "Accel Transmatic Limited" on slump sale basis w.e.f. 16/8/2011 vide agreement dt.11/11/2011 ... disallowed the claim of depreciation holding that the excess amount paid by the assessee over the value of asset represents 'non-compete fee'. For this, the AO has relied upon the agreement dt.11/11/2011 between the parties wherein a specific non-compete clause is included for 5 years vide Item No.13.9

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

Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT', for short]. We see no reason to interfere with the factual finding’’. 5.2 The ld. DR raising the issue of ‘non-compete fee’ contented that during AY 2012-13, the assessee acquired software division of "Accel Transmatic Limited" on slump sale basis w.e.f. 16/8/2011 vide agreement dt.11/11/2011 ... disallowed the claim of depreciation holding that the excess amount paid by the assessee over the value of asset represents 'non-compete fee'. For this, the AO has relied upon the agreement dt.11/11/2011 between the parties wherein a specific non-compete clause is included for 5 years vide Item No.13.9

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

Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT', for short]. We see no reason to interfere with the factual finding’’. 5.2 The ld. DR raising the issue of ‘non-compete fee’ contented that during AY 2012-13, the assessee acquired software division of "Accel Transmatic Limited" on slump sale basis w.e.f. 16/8/2011 vide agreement dt.11/11/2011 ... disallowed the claim of depreciation holding that the excess amount paid by the assessee over the value of asset represents 'non-compete fee'. For this, the AO has relied upon the agreement dt.11/11/2011 between the parties wherein a specific non-compete clause is included for 5 years vide Item No.13.9

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

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 ... 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. 9. In view of the facts

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

assessee with Orchid India for acquiring its injectable drug unit, the assessee has also made payment to Mr. K. Raghavendra Rao for non-compete fee during F.Y 2010-11 and F.Y 2011-12 and claimed as intangible asset. 2.2. During the relevant previous year, assessee had affected sales ... erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation of INR 2,28,62,041 on the non-compete fee paid to Mr. K Raghavendra Rao, the principal shareholder of Orchid India by not treating them as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. 2.4. Without prejudice

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 973/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Rony Anthony, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee has claimed expenses of Rs.5 crore as exceptional item expense, in the nature of non-compete fees. The learned AO after considering the arguments of the assessee, took a view that the expenses incurred are in the nature of non-compete ... circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified, rather grossly erred by upholding the disallowance of the entire expense as non-compete fee without appreciating the fact the consideration was primarily for settlement towards termination of agreements. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Samkeet Arya Homes LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

scenario. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not applying the various tests which evidence that the non-compete fees in the case of the Appellant is a revenue expenditure.” 3. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of income from ... that the details of various projects undertaken by Shri Paras Pandit evidencing his reputation in the real estate business due to which the non-compete fee was paid to him are as under :- Name of Entity Designation Saleable Total Year of Project of Mr.Paras Area Units competition/initiation Pandit

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 724/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 337/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 286/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7532/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

M/S. Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7447/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

total interest on such bonds, without any basis, whatsoever and in a totally arbitrary manner. 5. Addition on account of receipt of non-compete fees Rs.5 crores. 5.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores as non- compete fees, to the income of the appellant ... Concise Grounds of Appeal). f) Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5 crores towards receipt of non-compete fees when it was taxable neither as revenue re- ceipt nor liable to capital gains tax (refer ground no.5.1 of the concise grounds of appeals

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 636/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned

Sundram Finance Lomited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 81/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-A. Ltu, Chennai

ITA 80/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned

Sundaram Finance, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

ITA 79/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

ITA 9/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

ITA 8/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

loss on sale of repossessed assets (iii) Depreciation on software development (iv) Depreciation on computer software (v) Disallowance of bad Debts (vi) Non-Compete fees as revenue expenditure (vii) Business origination cost These are adjudicated as under: 15. Rate of Depreciation on Commercial vehicles 15.1 The assessee claimed higher depreciation ... 636/Chny/2023 20. Non Compete fees as revenue expenditure for ay 2011-12: 20.1 The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.60 Lakhs towards non-compete fee to Inland Carriers (Bombay). The AO has disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act, treating the same as capital expenditure. 20.2 The impugned