Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the annual protection fee payments made under clauses 4 and 5 of the lease were expenditure of a capital nature and therefore not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The payments were undertaken at the inception of the business in return for a restrictive covenant by which the lessor undertook not to introduce competing limestone operations in specified areas. The advantage secured was not part of the operational expenses of carrying on the business, but a protection that endured for the lease period or a substantial part of it. Although the sums were paid periodically, the consideration was fixed and irrevocably committed for the acquisition of an enduring advantage. The payments sterilised potential competition, strengthened the capital structure of the business, and were in the nature of an initial outlay rather than recurring trading expense.
Conclusion: The payments were capital expenditure and were rightly disallowed as deductions under Section 10(2)(xv).
Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred at the inception of a business to secure an enduring protective advantage against competition is capital expenditure, even if payable in periodic instalments, where the obligation is finally and irrevocably undertaken for the benefit of the business structure as a whole.