Introduction
In a significant ruling clarifying the tax treatment of restrictive covenants, the Supreme Court of India has held that non-compete fees are deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided such payment does not result in the acquisition of a capital asset or alter the profit-making structure of the business.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, settles a long-standing controversy on whether non-compete payments should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Court ruled that non-compete fees merely protect or enhance business profitability and facilitate smooth business operations, thereby qualifying for deduction.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for corporate restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, employment contracts, and business transfers.
Legal Issue Before The Supreme Court
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
Whether payment of non-compete fee results in acquisition of a capital asset or enduring benefit so as to be treated as capital expenditure, or whether it qualifies as revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Under Section 37(1), any expenditure (not being capital expenditure or personal expense) laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business is deductible while computing taxable income.
Tax authorities have often disallowed non-compete fees by categorising them as capital expenditure on the ground that such payments confer an “enduring benefit.” The Supreme Court examined whether this assumption is legally sustainable.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
1. No Creation Or Acquisition Of Capital Asset
The Court categorically held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of any capital asset. A non-compete agreement merely restrains the payee from carrying out certain activities for a limited duration.
The payer does not acquire ownership rights, intellectual property, or exclusive commercial rights that could be classified as a capital asset.
Thus, the essential condition for capital expenditure—creation or acquisition of an asset—was absent.
2. No Alteration Of Profit-Making Structure
The Supreme Court reiterated that capital expenditure generally alters the profit-making apparatus of a business, whereas revenue expenditure facilitates day-to-day operations.
The Court observed that:
- Non-compete fees do not modify the core business structure
- They do not expand capital base
- They only ensure commercial convenience and operational efficiency
Hence, such expenditure does not change the profit-earning framework but merely protects existing business interests.
3. Enduring Benefit Test Not Absolute
The Court clarified that the “enduring benefit” test is not conclusive and must be applied contextually.
Merely because a benefit lasts for some time does not automatically make the expenditure capital in nature.
Non-compete agreements are usually time-bound, and their purpose is to prevent immediate commercial harm rather than confer permanent advantage.
4. Facilitation Of Business Operations
The Supreme Court emphasised that non-compete fees are paid to:
- Protect market share
- Avoid unfair competition
- Ensure smooth transition in business transfers
- Safeguard commercial interests
Such expenditure facilitates the carrying on of business more profitably, which squarely falls within the scope of revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).
Key Observations By The Court
Some crucial takeaways from the judgment include:
- Non-compete fee is protective, not acquisitive
- It does not result in ownership or exclusive rights
- It merely regulates competitive conduct
- It supports business continuity rather than expansion
The Court concluded that non-compete fee is allowable as a revenue deduction, subject to it being incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
Distinction Between Capital And Revenue Expenditure Reaffirmed
The judgment reinforces established principles governing capital and revenue expenditure:
| Capital Expenditure | Revenue Expenditure |
|---|---|
| Creates/acquires asset | Facilitates business operations |
| Alters profit structure | Preserves profitability |
| Enduring structural benefit | Operational advantage |
| Non-deductible | Deductible under Section 37(1) |
Non-compete fees, the Court held, clearly fall within the revenue expenditure category.
Impact Of The Judgment
1. Tax Certainty For Businesses
The ruling provides much-needed clarity to businesses that routinely enter into non-compete arrangements during:
- Mergers and acquisitions
- Sale of business undertakings
- Employment and consultancy contracts
It reduces litigation and inconsistent assessments by tax authorities.
2. Relief For Corporate Taxpayers
Companies can now confidently claim deduction of non-compete fees, provided they can demonstrate:
- Commercial necessity
- Business purpose
- Absence of capital asset creation
This could significantly reduce tax outgo in restructuring transactions.
3. Alignment With Commercial Reality
The Supreme Court’s approach reflects commercial substance over form, recognising that restrictive covenants are part of ordinary business strategy rather than capital investment.
Comparison With Earlier Jurisprudence
Earlier decisions often treated non-compete fees inconsistently, sometimes branding them as capital expenditure due to perceived enduring benefits. This judgment aligns with the modern trend of functional analysis, focusing on the real nature and purpose of the expenditure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling that non-compete fees are deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act marks a pivotal development in Indian tax jurisprudence.
By holding that such payments neither create capital assets nor alter the profit-making structure of a business, the Court has reinforced a pragmatic and business-friendly interpretation of tax law.
This decision will serve as a binding precedent, offering clarity, consistency, and relief to taxpayers while ensuring that genuine business expenditures are not unfairly penalised.
Also Read
Supreme Court to Hold Special Vacation Sitting on December 22, 2025 for Urgent Matters
