https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5078 The Supreme Court held that the payments made under the lease deed were revenue expenditures, not capital expenditures. The lease was short-term for removing sand as stock-in-trade, not for acquiring a capital asset. The Court criticized the High Court for not accepting the findings of fact by the lower authorities and emphasized that the High Court's role is to apply the law to established facts. Precedent cases were referenced to support the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and affirmed that the payments were revenue expenditures. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5078 The Supreme Court held that the payments made under the lease deed were revenue expenditures, not capital expenditures. The lease was short-term for removing sand as stock-in-trade, not for acquiring a capital asset. The Court criticized the High Court for not accepting the findings of fact by the lower authorities and emphasized that the High Court's role is to apply the law to established facts. Precedent cases were referenced to support the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and affirmed that the payments were revenue expenditures. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5078