<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (11) TMI 1057 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239880</link>
    <description>The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing depreciation on the non-compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the non-compete fee should be considered a commercial right eligible for depreciation, as it supported the intellectual property rights transferred to the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1057 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239880</link>
      <description>The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing depreciation on the non-compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the non-compete fee should be considered a commercial right eligible for depreciation, as it supported the intellectual property rights transferred to the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>