IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER &

MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1867/DEL/2020; Assessment Year: 2016-17 Beacon Higher Education Vs ACIT CIR 4(2)

Services Pvt. Ltd New Delhi S-40, 2^nd Floor, Vasant Square Mall, Plot A, Sector B Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAECB1283F ITA No. 2574/DEL/2024; Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT Circle-4(2) Vs Beacon Higher Education Delhi Services Pvt. Ltd S-40, 2^nd Floor, Vasant Square Mall, Plot A, Sector B Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAECB1283F Assessee by : Shri Y K Kapur, Advocate Revenue/Department by : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI :

1. The above captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as assessee against the orders u/s 250 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), dated 18.09.2020 and 26.03.2024, passed by CIT(A), Delhi for A.Y 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively.

2. The assessee in ITA No. 1867/Del/2020 [A.Y. 2016-17] has raised following grounds of appeal:

“ 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts of the matter under applicable provisions confirming order passed by the Ld. AO, which is arbitrary and has ignored the fact decided in judicial orders being against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of IT Act, 1961.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts to extend an opportunity to examine any additional evidence being against the principles of natural justice.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred to confirm the disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,92,67,578/-claimed u/s 32 (1) (ii) on intangible asset i.e. non-compete fee, as per definition u/s 2 (f) without going into the merit of fact of assesse and upheld the AO's addition based on a judicial order, which is not related to the matter of assess at all, and didn't accepted the already passed order (AY 12-13) by his predecessor in the same issue.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred confirming to disallow the brought forward accumulated losses of Amalgamating Company aggregating of Rs 618,27,952/- which was not claimed by the assesse u/s 72A of the Act, on the ground that section 72A is not applicable to assessee during the AY 2016-17.

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred to accept the order of AY 2012-13, passed by his predecessor on the same issue allowing depreciation on intangible asset i.e. non compete fee and acceted that referred judicial order is not applicable to the assessee.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any ground of appeal before or during the appellate proceedings. ”

3. The revenue in ITA No. 2574/Del/2024 [2017-18] has raised the following grounds of appeal.

“(1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the factthat jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Sharp Business Systems Vs. CIT, has held that depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fee.

(2) The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. ”

4. We first take up the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17. The appeal was earlier dismissed by the Hon’ble co-ordinate bench ex parte vide order dated 30.10.2023. The order was recalled in pursuance to the order dated 27.06.2025 on M.A. filed by the assessee. Brief facts are that the return declaring income of Rs. 7,87,460/- and long term capital loss of Rs. 21,06,14,092/- was filed for A.Y. 2016-17 on 17.06.2016. Subsequently, on account of amalgamation order dated 31.03.2017, passed by the NCLT, approving merger with its 100% subsidiary company, a revised return was filed. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment completed u/s 143(3) assessing total income at Rs. 9,18,82,989/- after making disallowance of depreciation claimed on