https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180624 The court determined that the payment made by the assessee was classified as revenue expenditure based on various factors, including the indefinite period of payment, its relation to turnover rather than profits, and the absence of a specific sum fixed as part of the purchase price. Precedents such as Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. 36/9 Holding Ltd. supported this decision. The Tribunal's view that the payment for the account year 1941 was revenue expenditure was upheld, with both questions answered in the affirmative, and costs awarded against the Commissioner. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:40:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180624 The court determined that the payment made by the assessee was classified as revenue expenditure based on various factors, including the indefinite period of payment, its relation to turnover rather than profits, and the absence of a specific sum fixed as part of the purchase price. Precedents such as Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. 36/9 Holding Ltd. supported this decision. The Tribunal's view that the payment for the account year 1941 was revenue expenditure was upheld, with both questions answered in the affirmative, and costs awarded against the Commissioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180624