TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "The Appellant prefers following grounds in appeal against the order dated March 30, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"]. 1.0 That the order passed by CIT(A) partly allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant without appreciating facts on record is bad in law and is liable to be quashed; 2.0 Disallowance of non-compete fees 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,64,83,985 claimed on account of 'non-compete' fees was capital expenditure in nature not eligible as a revenue expenditure by merely following orders for earlier years; 2.2 That the Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 4. The Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.6 raised by the assessee is against the treatment of non-compete fee of Rs. 50,64,83,985/- as capital expenditure. In the alternate vide Ground No.2.5, the assessee has raised that incase expenditure is held to be capital in nature then depreciation is to be allowed on the same. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 50,64,83,985/- as non-compete fee amortized. The assessee explained that during the year under consideration, it had acquired running business of various bottlers directly or through amalgamation. The non-compete fee was paid to the bottle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on u/s 32 of the Act on the said capital expenditure. He further pointed out that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case has admitted both issues as question of law and the same are pending for adjudication. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In view of the issue decided against the assessee by the Tribunal (supra), we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and hold that the payment of non-compete fee was capital expenditure in the hands of the assessee, on which the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The Tribunal had relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sharp Business System vs CIT (supra) and applied the same. We decide both the main issues and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Year 2002-03 but no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on expenditure totaling Rs. 8.91 crores (approx.) in Assessment Year 2003-04. Further, in Assessment Year 2004-05 though the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 4.87 crores (approx.) but the CIT(A) had deleted the same and no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). He further stressed in Assessment Year 2005-06, similar recurring expenditure for carrying on business was incurred and claimed as revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 5.10 crores (approx.), which was allowed. 10. The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and also the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assess....