https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210431 The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the non-compete fee paid by the appellant was capital expenditure, providing an enduring benefit over five years. The Court held that the fee should not be treated as revenue expenditure, as it was classified as an intangible asset in the appellant's books. Additionally, the Court supported the Tribunal's remand of the issue of depreciation allowance under Section 32(1)(ii) back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration, in line with the nature of the expenditure being determined as capital. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2015 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210431 The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the non-compete fee paid by the appellant was capital expenditure, providing an enduring benefit over five years. The Court held that the fee should not be treated as revenue expenditure, as it was classified as an intangible asset in the appellant's books. Additionally, the Court supported the Tribunal's remand of the issue of depreciation allowance under Section 32(1)(ii) back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration, in line with the nature of the expenditure being determined as capital. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210431