Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J. - The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), pertaining to assessment year 1995-96, impugns the majority decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in ITA No.4898/Del/98. The present appeal was admitted for hearing on 25th April, 2005, on the following substantial question of law:- ''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 6.6 crores received by the assessee from SWC is on account of handing over management and control of CDBI (which were earlier under the management and control of the assessee) to SWC as terminal benefit and is taxable u/s 28(ii) of the Income-tax Act or same is exempt as capital receipt being non competition fee by executing deed of covenant.'' (*correcting the typographical error, may be read as ''CDBL'') 2. The respondent-assessee, an individual, was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (CDBL, for short), a public company listed on the Delhi Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange. During the period relevant to the assessment year and earlier, CDBL was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL, for short) and beer. The respondent-assessee along with his family members, i.e. wife, son, daughter in law and two daughters held 1,86,019 shares, constituting 57.29% of the paid-up equity share capital of CDBL. 3. M/s Shaw Wallace Company Group (SWC Group, for short), a giant in liquor business in comparison to CDBL, offered and purchased through their subsidiaries, shares held by the respondent assessee and his family members in CDBL at the rate of Rs.30/- per share for Rs.55,83,270/-. The deal for the sale of 1,86,019 shares was formalized by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, for short) dated 13th April, 1994. The respondent assessee who individually held 12% of the paid-up equity share capital of CDBL also entered into a deed of covenant in his individual capacity with the SWC Group. On the same date, another MOU was executed between the SWC Group and the respondent-assessee as an individual with the restrictive…