https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66706 A non-compete payment to the company was capital in nature because the restrictive covenant impaired its trading apparatus and existing market position in the specified products; the receipt was therefore not taxable. The same payment in the hands of the individual was taxable as income from other sources because he had no independent business source or enduring capital asset in the affected territories, and the amount was linked to the company's business arrangement rather than loss of his own source of income. Interest expenditure referable to the period before dividend income became exempt was allowable, since section 14A could not disallow deduction for the taxable dividend period. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:55:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66706 A non-compete payment to the company was capital in nature because the restrictive covenant impaired its trading apparatus and existing market position in the specified products; the receipt was therefore not taxable. The same payment in the hands of the individual was taxable as income from other sources because he had no independent business source or enduring capital asset in the affected territories, and the amount was linked to the company's business arrangement rather than loss of his own source of income. Interest expenditure referable to the period before dividend income became exempt was allowable, since section 14A could not disallow deduction for the taxable dividend period. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66706