https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214958 Lease premium paid for a long-term lease was treated as capital expenditure because it secured enduring leasehold rights, exclusive possession, construction rights and other proprietary incidents, while the annual rent remained separately payable and revisable; the amortisation claim as revenue expenditure therefore failed. The Court distinguished authorities relied on by the assessee as fact-specific and held that the payment was not merely deferred rent but a capital outlay within the distinction between premium and rent under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. On consistency, it held that income-tax proceedings are not governed by res judicata and that an earlier erroneous acceptance cannot bind the Revenue in later years. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214958 Lease premium paid for a long-term lease was treated as capital expenditure because it secured enduring leasehold rights, exclusive possession, construction rights and other proprietary incidents, while the annual rent remained separately payable and revisable; the amortisation claim as revenue expenditure therefore failed. The Court distinguished authorities relied on by the assessee as fact-specific and held that the payment was not merely deferred rent but a capital outlay within the distinction between premium and rent under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. On consistency, it held that income-tax proceedings are not governed by res judicata and that an earlier erroneous acceptance cannot bind the Revenue in later years. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214958