2009 (10) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal filed by the revenue and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum dated 27.02.2004 in ITA No. 57/BGM/2002-03. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. This substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- received by the assessee pursuant to non-competition agreement entered into by the assessee with the Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd., is to be treated as capital receipt and not revenue receipt is contrary to law, perverse and arbitrary and calls for interference in this appeal? 4. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1997-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....109/PUNJ/2004 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal' for short) and the assessee being aggrieved by the other findings which are answered against him, preferred ITA No.120/PUNJ/2004 and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed both the appeals by the order dated 02.01.2006 confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority impugned before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of appeal by the Revenue in ITA No. 109/PUNJ/2004, Revenue has preferred this appeal. 5. The question as to whether the amount received pursuant to non-competition agreement should be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt has been decided in recent Division Bench decision of this ....