https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366082 Madras HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding non-compete compensation deduction, holding that payment to prevent competition constitutes revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure since no new business assets or income sources were acquired. The court found the assessee properly treated it as deferred revenue expenditure over five years, not capitalized expenditure as Revenue claimed. However, regarding transponder hire charges, the court upheld disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), determining that TDS deduction claims were impermissible as transponder charges don't qualify as royalty or technical fees requiring tax deduction. en-us Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2025 17:59:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366082 Madras HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding non-compete compensation deduction, holding that payment to prevent competition constitutes revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure since no new business assets or income sources were acquired. The court found the assessee properly treated it as deferred revenue expenditure over five years, not capitalized expenditure as Revenue claimed. However, regarding transponder hire charges, the court upheld disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), determining that TDS deduction claims were impermissible as transponder charges don't qualify as royalty or technical fees requiring tax deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366082