https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181102 Expenditure incurred under a pre-commencement agreement to secure monopoly rights and immunity from enhanced property tax, income-tax and labour legislation was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage for the business as a whole, so it was not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal's power to order further inquiry was also recognised where material facts relevant to whether cheque receipts were received in British India had not been properly investigated, and a remand was not improper merely because of delay or earlier departmental inaction. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:49:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181102 Expenditure incurred under a pre-commencement agreement to secure monopoly rights and immunity from enhanced property tax, income-tax and labour legislation was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage for the business as a whole, so it was not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal's power to order further inquiry was also recognised where material facts relevant to whether cheque receipts were received in British India had not been properly investigated, and a remand was not improper merely because of delay or earlier departmental inaction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Jun 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181102