https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59461 A one-time non-competition fee paid under an agreement was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage by restraining the erstwhile management from competing for ten years and from undertaking specified activities. The presence of clauses allowing written approval or modification did not reduce the binding effect of the restrictive covenant. Authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished on their facts, while the enduring-benefit principle supported the Revenue's position. Once characterised as capital in nature, the payment could not alternatively be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure spread over ten years. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:19:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59461 A one-time non-competition fee paid under an agreement was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage by restraining the erstwhile management from competing for ten years and from undertaking specified activities. The presence of clauses allowing written approval or modification did not reduce the binding effect of the restrictive covenant. Authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished on their facts, while the enduring-benefit principle supported the Revenue's position. Once characterised as capital in nature, the payment could not alternatively be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure spread over ten years. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59461