https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152215 Advance paid as the price for acquiring shares was not a trading debt; the court applied the commercial substance test and the distinction between trading debts and mere advances, finding no nexus with trading activity, and denied deduction under section 10(2)(xi). The payment was also held to be capital in nature because it was made to acquire shares and agency rights and was incurred in an earlier year; it therefore failed the revenue-expenditure test and was not allowable under section 10(2)(xv). Both statutory heads were rejected on these factual and legal bases. en-us Thu, 25 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152215 Advance paid as the price for acquiring shares was not a trading debt; the court applied the commercial substance test and the distinction between trading debts and mere advances, finding no nexus with trading activity, and denied deduction under section 10(2)(xi). The payment was also held to be capital in nature because it was made to acquire shares and agency rights and was incurred in an earlier year; it therefore failed the revenue-expenditure test and was not allowable under section 10(2)(xv). Both statutory heads were rejected on these factual and legal bases. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152215