← 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

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

ITA 7/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

ITA 28/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

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai

ITA 27/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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

ITA 26/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Gains” Rs.58,50,00,000/-: 33. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.117 crores as non-compete fees under the head “Premium on Insurance Venture” received from Allianz A.G. Germany. The assessee submitted that Allianz A.G. Germany paid Rs.45 crores for general ... Allianz A.G. Germany. The assessing officer was of the view that entire amount of Rs.117 crores claimed as exempt as “Non-Compete Fees” was not genuine and same was paid on account of ‘Goodwill’ for using the name of Bajaj. However, the assessee has also received

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Gains” Rs.58,50,00,000/-: 33. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.117 crores as non-compete fees under the head “Premium on Insurance Venture” received from Allianz A.G. Germany. The assessee submitted that Allianz A.G. Germany paid Rs.45 crores for general ... Allianz A.G. Germany. The assessing officer was of the view that entire amount of Rs.117 crores claimed as exempt as “Non-Compete Fees” was not genuine and same was paid on account of ‘Goodwill’ for using the name of Bajaj. However, the assessee has also received

Mahesh Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle2(1), C

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.643/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147

revaluation of assets of Rs.2,80,73,000/- as Business income after holding it as in the character of windfall profit or non-compete fee. The assesse was a partner in a firm by name, M/s. PRIME ONE. The said firm in which he was a partner was not dissolved

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd., Ground Floor, Spencer Bldg

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/MUM/2023[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-2(2)(1) Lyka Labs Ltd. Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 30 Forjett Street, Grant Road (W), Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 crore towards non-compete fees without appreciating the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rs.3,57,00,000/- Rai Bahadur Jairam Viji ... circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 crore towards non-compete fees without appreciating the facts that the restriction on the assessee as per the agreement is not absolute but restriction shall apply till such time the assessee holds

Rajinder Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 5176/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2007-08 Rajinder Sharma, Vs. Acit, 1205B, Beverly Park-Ii, Gurgaon Dlf City Phase Ii, Gurgaon – 122009. Pan Aibps7516G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Sharma in personFor Respondent: Ms. Mayuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 17(3)(iii)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

Nalini Mahajan vs ACIT (ITA No. 3130/Del/2018) decided on 6.04.2023 set aside the order of Learned Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) wherein non-compete fee related to profession is made taxable only w.e.f. AY 2017-18 and non-compete fee in relation to profession for period prior

M/S International Customer Related Management Services Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 6(1), Mohali

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

ITA 436/CHANDI/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate with Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(2)

appellant in connection with procurement/consolidation of land. 7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs.7.03 crores, being non-compete fees paid by the appellant in the assessment year under consideration, by treating the same as non-genuine and not incurred for the purpose

Siel Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1)

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

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 115J

assessee has received non- competition fee from Collaborator amounting to Rs. 64,42,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer further noticed that this non-compete fee has been treated as capital receipt in the return of income and claimed as not liable to tax under the Act. 8. The assessee ... demerger, approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 11. The Assessing Officer formed a strong belief that prior to receipt of non-compete fee, the assessee had already transferred all assets of its compressor limited and, therefore, non-compete fees is not a consideration received for transfer

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 690/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

assessee's contention that the low GP rate of the assessee was on account of the fact that it had received non-compete fees of Rs.5Cr +10Cr =Rs.15 Cr in assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 from M/s Jai Suspension Systems LLP, which prevented the assessee from selling

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

assessee's contention that the low GP rate of the assessee was on account of the fact that it had received non-compete fees of Rs.5Cr +10Cr =Rs.15 Cr in assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 from M/s Jai Suspension Systems LLP, which prevented the assessee from selling

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

Town & Country Customer Contracts 10,88,199 Value Edge Customer Contracts 58,75,000 Customer Relationships 1,58,75,000 Non-Compete fees 2,22,50,000 Denali Customer Contracts 5,14,600 Total 33,72,60,637 13. The assessee submitted that the depreciation claimed on customer contracts, customer ... that the contracts with Value Edge and Denali being similar in nature the depreciation on customer contracts should be allowed. With respect to non-compete fee the assessee submitted that the same is paid whereby the sellers of Value Edge will not engage in business which is directly or indirectly

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

Town & Country Customer Contracts 10,88,199 Value Edge Customer Contracts 58,75,000 Customer Relationships 1,58,75,000 Non-Compete fees 2,22,50,000 Denali Customer Contracts 5,14,600 Total 33,72,60,637 13. The assessee submitted that the depreciation claimed on customer contracts, customer ... that the contracts with Value Edge and Denali being similar in nature the depreciation on customer contracts should be allowed. With respect to non-compete fee the assessee submitted that the same is paid whereby the sellers of Value Edge will not engage in business which is directly or indirectly

JCIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5810/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Wasim Arshad, CIT- DR

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee, in its appeal, has challenged the disallowance on account of: (i) Non-compete fees Rs.2 0271,336/– (ii) Reversal of provision towards bad and doubtful debt Rs.8, 34,21,291/ (iii) Amount paid for traffic, challans Rs.2 ... return of income, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 2,02,71,336/– on account of non-compete fee amortized in the computation of income. 5. The assessee was asked to justify its claim and the assessee relied upon the decision

Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 154Section 2Section 254Section 32

grossly erred to upheld the disallowed depreciation of Rs.2,15,00,000/- claimed u/s 32 (1) (ii) on intangible asset i.e. non-compete fee. as per definition u/s 2 (1) without going into the merit of fact of assessee and applied the High Court judicial order arbitrary in the matter ... same issue and upheld that referred judicial order is not applicable to the assessee and allowed depreciation on intangible asset i.e. non-compete fee and set aside the order passed by the AO u/s 154 original order passed by the AO u/s 154.” 3. The assessee has also filed additional

ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 154Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- made on account of depreciation claimed on non-compete Fee by holding that non-compete fee cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure in P&L account but depreciation can be claimed being capital asset.” 3. In this case assessee ... disallowing the depreciation allowed earlier. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that non-compete fee is not revenue in nature and cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure. Having said so, the ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation on the amount

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 5671/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Wasim Arshad, CIT- DR

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee, in its appeal, has challenged the disallowance on account of: (i) Non-compete fees Rs.2 0271,336/– (ii) Reversal of provision towards bad and doubtful debt Rs.8, 34,21,291/ (iii) Amount paid for traffic, challans Rs.2 ... return of income, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 2,02,71,336/– on account of non-compete fee amortized in the computation of income. 5. The assessee was asked to justify its claim and the assessee relied upon the decision

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1125/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

deciding the appeals, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee by deleting certain additions completely. Whereas, he partly sustained the disallowance of non-compete fee claimed as revenue expenses. However, he upheld the disallowance of depreciation on acquisition of bottlers list and disallowance of processing fees ... bottlers list and disallowances of processing fees. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to disallowance of non-compete fees by following its earlier decisions in assessee’s own case. 4. Be that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals