https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193276 A lump sum paid for the permanent transfer of secret processes and know-how was treated as capital because the real quid pro quo was the parting with a valuable capital asset, not remuneration for ordinary services. The payment was also not a trading receipt, as it was not referable to the company's existing wholesale trade or to profits arising from carrying on that trade. The fact that the company could continue other business activities did not change the essential character of the receipt. The sum was therefore outside assessable trading profits and was capital in nature. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193276 A lump sum paid for the permanent transfer of secret processes and know-how was treated as capital because the real quid pro quo was the parting with a valuable capital asset, not remuneration for ordinary services. The payment was also not a trading receipt, as it was not referable to the company's existing wholesale trade or to profits arising from carrying on that trade. The fact that the company could continue other business activities did not change the essential character of the receipt. The sum was therefore outside assessable trading profits and was capital in nature. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193276