https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93591 HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:15 +0530 Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93591 HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:15 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93591