PADMANABHA UDUPA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee was carrying on business under the name of M/s Madhuban Restaurant along with his wife and she was the Proprietorix of an Ice Cream Parlour. In the course of settlement of dispute among family members who were Directors of the Company, the assessee stopped his restaurant business and was paid Rs. 22 lakhs for not using the name Madhuban Restaurant in the new business if he starts. On facts it is disclosed that the assessee simultaneously started restaurant business under another name and therefore the payment was for agreeing for a covenant that he will not use the name Madhuban Restaurant. The assessee's claim for exemption was turned down by all the authorities and the Tribunal because the income was received from business and the same was not for stopping the Restaurant business. There was no restriction for continuing the business by the assessee but only restriction against the use of the name Madhuban Restaurant. We do not think the income received is anything different from business income falling under s. 28(f) of the IT Act. Since the Tribunal found on facts that the assessee was continuing his business though under different name, we do not find the conclusion rendered by the Tribunal gives rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.