https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7424 The High Court held that the sum paid as lease money for extracting earth for brick manufacturing was a revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. The Court rejected the department's argument that the lease constituted a capital asset due to its enduring nature, emphasizing that the expenditure was solely for obtaining raw material for manufacturing purposes. The Court based its decision on the criteria outlined in a Supreme Court precedent and concluded that the lease expenditure qualified as a revenue expense. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7424 The High Court held that the sum paid as lease money for extracting earth for brick manufacturing was a revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. The Court rejected the department's argument that the lease constituted a capital asset due to its enduring nature, emphasizing that the expenditure was solely for obtaining raw material for manufacturing purposes. The Court based its decision on the criteria outlined in a Supreme Court precedent and concluded that the lease expenditure qualified as a revenue expense. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7424