Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Eicher Ltd (Delhi High Court)

CIT vs. Eicher Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 26, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Non-compete compensation paid to an employee for an indefinite period is business expenditure and not capital expenditure as no capital asset or benefit of enduring benefit came into existence. While the lenght of the period of the covenant is important, it is not decisive. What is more important is the purpose of the payment and its intended object and effect.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    The Sick Inndustrial Companies Act is a complete code and during the pendency of a reference, an industrial company cannot apply to the High Court for sanctioning a scheme under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The principles … In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High…
  3. CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    (i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is … CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H…
  4. CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court) 

    The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The … CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court)…
  5. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›