{"id":13,"date":"2008-01-21T20:39:47","date_gmt":"2008-01-21T20:39:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=13"},"modified":"2008-01-21T20:39:47","modified_gmt":"2008-01-21T20:39:47","slug":"cit-vs-narendra-desai-bombay-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-narendra-desai-bombay-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?narendra_desai_non_compete.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" \/><\/a>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) are prospective and do not apply to the year in question.    <\/p>\n<p>  See also: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?saurabh_srivastava_non_compete.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Saurabh Srivastava vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi SB)<\/a><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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) &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-narendra-desai-bombay-high-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}