https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122753 A receipt arising from settlement of development-right disputes was analysed as a capital receipt where the amount was received earlier, consistently credited as a liability, and no deduction had ever been allowed for any trading liability. Section 41(1) did not apply because there was no prior allowance or deduction to trigger remission or cessation taxation. Section 68 was inapplicable because the payer's identity and the receipt were established. The compensation was treated as consideration for foregoing a right to sue, and a mere right to sue is not a transferable capital asset under section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 28(va) was also held inapplicable because it covers non-compete and similar restraints, not surrender of litigation rights. en-us Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Oct 2023 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122753 A receipt arising from settlement of development-right disputes was analysed as a capital receipt where the amount was received earlier, consistently credited as a liability, and no deduction had ever been allowed for any trading liability. Section 41(1) did not apply because there was no prior allowance or deduction to trigger remission or cessation taxation. Section 68 was inapplicable because the payer's identity and the receipt were established. The compensation was treated as consideration for foregoing a right to sue, and a mere right to sue is not a transferable capital asset under section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 28(va) was also held inapplicable because it covers non-compete and similar restraints, not surrender of litigation rights. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122753