Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The Tribunal took note of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA.No.315 of 2010 dated 30.3.2012 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee thereby reversing the findings of the CIT(A).

13. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business System Vs. CIT-III [reported in (2012) 27 Taxmann.com 50] in support of her contention that the amount paid as non compete fee did not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.

14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 257 Taxman 473], a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid by the assessee was for the purpose of its business and it did https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ not entail an enduring benefit to the assessee in its business, whether the payment of such fee was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In this decision, the Court took note of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business System and it has been held as follows :

40. There is a marked difference in the factual position in Sharp Business System (supra) and the factual position in the case on hand where the assessee's business continues to remain the same, and this is also one more https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ reason to hold that the decision in Sharp Business System (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case apart from the reservation expressed by us above.”

15. In the decision of this Court in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd., the Court distinguished the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business System. We would hasten to add that the facts in the case of Sharp Business System were couched differently in the sense that a sum of Rs.73 Crores was paid to M/s.L & T Ltd., as consideration for the latter in setting-up or undertaking or assisting in the setting-up or undertaking any business in India, of selling, marketing and trade of electronic office products for seven years. The facts of the case of the assessee before us are entirely different. This aspect had been noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that in the assessee's own case, the High Court of Delhi decided the issue in favour of the assessee.