https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441848 The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision on two key issues. First, the compensation paid for the termination of agreements was correctly treated as revenue expenditure, aligning with commercial expediency and the original agreement terms. Second, the non-compete fees paid were deemed capital expenditure, entitling the respondent to claim depreciation as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The HC found no substantial question of law, concluding that the Tribunal applied correct principles without any perversity. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441848 The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision on two key issues. First, the compensation paid for the termination of agreements was correctly treated as revenue expenditure, aligning with commercial expediency and the original agreement terms. Second, the non-compete fees paid were deemed capital expenditure, entitling the respondent to claim depreciation as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The HC found no substantial question of law, concluding that the Tribunal applied correct principles without any perversity. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441848