https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275961 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing depreciation on the non-compete fee and overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The judgment emphasized the necessity of exclusivity for assets to qualify for depreciation, citing a High Court decision that clarified the distinction between non-compete fees and traditional intangible assets. The appeal was allowed, and the AO's action was restored, highlighting the importance of aligning the nature of assets with statutory provisions for depreciation eligibility. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:54:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275961 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing depreciation on the non-compete fee and overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The judgment emphasized the necessity of exclusivity for assets to qualify for depreciation, citing a High Court decision that clarified the distinction between non-compete fees and traditional intangible assets. The appeal was allowed, and the AO's action was restored, highlighting the importance of aligning the nature of assets with statutory provisions for depreciation eligibility. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275961