Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; there cannot be a straight jacket black and white formula; the analysis to be conducted by the tax authorities or administration has to be a fact dependent one. The assessee had a dual role – both as shareholder and as Managing Director. As Managing Director, he received only the non-compete amounts for two years. It is quite possible that he could have been given this amount as a capital receipt at one go for whatever reasons and that the amount be spread over two years. Undoubtedly, the Parliament has intervened and deemed that such amounts . so far as they relate to consideration for professionals should be treated as income by virtue of the amendment of 2017. However, with respect to the Revenue’s contention that regardless of that amendment even in the pre-existing law, this amount had to be treated as receipts and therefore taxable as income, cannot be accepted. It also noted CIT v. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (2015) 53 Taxmann.com 218 (SC), where the Supreme Court had held that compensation received towards loss of source of income and non-competition fee would be treated only as capital receipts and not liable to tax. Having regard to these decisions and the fact that the view of the ITAT is a plausible one, no question of law arises.