Held that  the payment of compensation under the advertisement and agency sales termination agreement saved the expenses which the assessee would have incurred not only in the relevant previous year but also for a few years to come.  Order of Tribunal allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure is affirmed. Followed,  CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.(1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC). Court also held that   by paying non-compete fees under the restrictive covenant agreement the assessee acquired rights which not only gave an enduring benefit but also protected the assessee’s business against competition, that too from a person who had closely worked with the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal had not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts. (AY.2008-09)