<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (10) TMI 1030 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801087</link>
    <description>Taxability of non-compete consideration was governed by an existing binding determination on corresponding receipts. Because the consideration fell within that established treatment, uniformity required the same tax result. The addition relating to the non-compete fee was therefore unsustainable and was deleted, with the substantial questions resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 05:44:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=930068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1030 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801087</link>
      <description>Taxability of non-compete consideration was governed by an existing binding determination on corresponding receipts. Because the consideration fell within that established treatment, uniformity required the same tax result. The addition relating to the non-compete fee was therefore unsustainable and was deleted, with the substantial questions resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>