Sharp Business System v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III; 2025 INSC 1481 - S.37 Income Tax Act - Non Compete Fee

Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

Income Tax Act, 1961 -Section 37- Any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession.’ For such an expenditure to be allowed, it should fulfill the following criteria: i) it should not be an expenditure described in Sections 30 to 36; ii) it should not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee - Such expenditure should be incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration -the length of time over which the enduring advantage may enure to the payer is not determinative of the nature of expenditure. As long as the enduring advantage is not in the capital field, where the advantage merely facilitates in carrying on the business more efficiently and profitably, leaving the fixed assets untouched, the payment made to secure such advantage would be an allowable business expenditure, irrespective of the period over which the advantage may accrue to the payer (assessee) by incurring of such expenditure.(Para 27)

Non-compete fee - Non-compete fee is paid by one party to another to restrain the latter from competing with the payer in the same line of business. It may be by way of a written agreement or by an oral understanding. The restriction may be limited to a specified territory or otherwise; similarly, it can be for a specified period or otherwise. Purpose of non-compete payment is to give a head start to the business of the payer. It can also be for the purpose of protecting the business of the payer or for enhancing the profitability of the business of the payer by insulating the payer from competition. on-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor accretion to the profit earning apparatus of the payer. The enduring advantage, if any, by restricting a competitor in business, is not in the capital field(Para 25)

Income Tax Act, 1961 -Section 36 - assessee is entitled to claim allowance of interest on the funds invested in sister concern for acquiring of controlling interest - The advances were made to the sister concern and its directors would also be covered by the principle of commercial expediency. (Para 39-40)

Case Info


Case Details

  • Case name: Sharp Business System thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III N.D.
  • Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1481
  • Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.; Manoj Misra, J.
  • Judgment date: December 19, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Mentioned

  • Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1
  • CIT v. Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468
  • CIT, West Bengal II v. Coal Shipments (P) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 902
  • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34
  • Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 323
  • Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 602
  • CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2023) 458 ITR 593
  • Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5114
  • SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1
  • CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377
  • Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 265
  • Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775
  • CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192
  • Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 458
  • CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 167
  • Sree Durga Distributors v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 476
  • Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 1 SCC 568
  • Atherton v. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 TC 155
  • John Smith & Son v. Moore (1921) 12 TC 266

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 2(11), 2(14) (Explanation), 28(va), 30–36, 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 115JA, 143(1), 143(3), 143(2), 234B, 271(1)(c)
  • Income Tax Rules, 1962: Appendix I (old), Parts A and B
  • Finance Act, 1994: Section 66E(e) (declared services; negative covenant reference)
  • Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: Section 10(2)(xv) (historical counterpart to Section 37)
  • IP statutes referenced conceptually: Patents Act, 1970; Copyright Act, 1957; Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in context of rights in rem/personam)