https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5252 Expenditure incurred for laying water pipelines and providing municipal amenities under the agreement was treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, because it did not create or improve any capital asset of the assessee. The pipelines and related installations vested in the municipality, and the assessee only obtained immunity from municipal rates, taxes and charges for fifteen years. Applying the commercial test of enduring benefit, the court held that the advantage was confined to the revenue field and left the fixed capital untouched. The deduction was therefore allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 19:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5252 Expenditure incurred for laying water pipelines and providing municipal amenities under the agreement was treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, because it did not create or improve any capital asset of the assessee. The pipelines and related installations vested in the municipality, and the assessee only obtained immunity from municipal rates, taxes and charges for fifteen years. Applying the commercial test of enduring benefit, the court held that the advantage was confined to the revenue field and left the fixed capital untouched. The deduction was therefore allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5252