https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173071 A deposit required as a condition for securing an organising agency was held to be capital in nature, not revenue expenditure. The Privy Council treated the loss by reference to the organising agency agreement itself, and not by analogy with the assessee's money-lending business. Because the deposit was linked to obtaining an agency with an enduring business advantage and was not a recurring outlay in the ordinary course of trade, the unrecovered balance did not constitute a trading loss incurred solely for earning profits. The amount was therefore not deductible under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question was answered for the Revenue. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:15:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173071 A deposit required as a condition for securing an organising agency was held to be capital in nature, not revenue expenditure. The Privy Council treated the loss by reference to the organising agency agreement itself, and not by analogy with the assessee's money-lending business. Because the deposit was linked to obtaining an agency with an enduring business advantage and was not a recurring outlay in the ordinary course of trade, the unrecovered balance did not constitute a trading loss incurred solely for earning profits. The amount was therefore not deductible under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question was answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Nov 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173071