https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761986 The HC upheld the Tribunal's finding that amounts received under a co-marketing agreement constituted capital receipt rather than revenue receipt. The court applied established SC precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts, noting that where payment compensates for surrendering rights in capital assets (patent and trademark) through restrictive covenants, it impairs the profit-making apparatus and constitutes capital receipt. The assessee surrendered rights under a negative covenant, resulting in loss of income source. The HC found the Tribunal's factual determination was based on meticulous evidence appreciation and not perverse, declining to interfere under Section 260A powers. Decision favored the assessee. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761986 The HC upheld the Tribunal's finding that amounts received under a co-marketing agreement constituted capital receipt rather than revenue receipt. The court applied established SC precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts, noting that where payment compensates for surrendering rights in capital assets (patent and trademark) through restrictive covenants, it impairs the profit-making apparatus and constitutes capital receipt. The assessee surrendered rights under a negative covenant, resulting in loss of income source. The HC found the Tribunal's factual determination was based on meticulous evidence appreciation and not perverse, declining to interfere under Section 260A powers. Decision favored the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761986