https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188906 Payment made at the outset to remove a competitor and secure exclusive access to a business was treated as capital expenditure because it created an enduring business advantage rather than meeting ordinary running expenses. The assessee therefore could not claim it as revenue expenditure. On the separate question of the eleven annas share in the Jaipuria firm, the Tribunal's view that the interest belonged to the Hindu undivided family and not to Chuni Lal personally was held to be a finding of fact supported by evidence, so it did not raise a referable question of law. No referable question arose on either issue, and reference jurisdiction was unavailable. en-us Thu, 26 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:46:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188906 Payment made at the outset to remove a competitor and secure exclusive access to a business was treated as capital expenditure because it created an enduring business advantage rather than meeting ordinary running expenses. The assessee therefore could not claim it as revenue expenditure. On the separate question of the eleven annas share in the Jaipuria firm, the Tribunal's view that the interest belonged to the Hindu undivided family and not to Chuni Lal personally was held to be a finding of fact supported by evidence, so it did not raise a referable question of law. No referable question arose on either issue, and reference jurisdiction was unavailable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188906