Allowing  the appeals of the assessee the Court held that ; a close analysis of the terms of the non-competition agreement, it was abundantly clear that the consideration paid to the company as well as to the assessee was for preventing them from competing with the transferee companies in respect of specified products in specified areas. On its own finding the Tribunal held that it was the assessee who had pioneered the time release technology and promoted the company. This by itself would show that the technical know-how constituted a part of the capital. There was no material to show that the transaction was not genuine. Nor had any specific finding in that regard been rendered. Therefore, there was no reason to ignore the specific terms of the agreements and render findings contrary thereto as regards the nature of the income received by the assessee. The income in the hands of the assessee was a capital receipt.  Though, the form in which the transaction which gives rise to income is clothed and the name which is given to it are irrelevant in assessing the nature of receipt arising from a transaction, for ignoring the specific terms of an agreement, a finding has to be necessarily rendered that those terms are a mere cloak or subterfuge for avoiding taxation.( AY. 1998-99 , 1999-2000)