https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8068 A payment made under a supplementary service agreement to modify an employee's terms, including a restraint on private practice, was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not bring into existence any asset or enduring capital advantage. The benefit to the employer was only incidental to the employment arrangement, reflected in improved service and possible operational economies, and did not amount to buying off competitors or enhancing goodwill in a capital sense. The payment was therefore deductible as revenue expenditure. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8068 A payment made under a supplementary service agreement to modify an employee's terms, including a restraint on private practice, was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not bring into existence any asset or enduring capital advantage. The benefit to the employer was only incidental to the employment arrangement, reflected in improved service and possible operational economies, and did not amount to buying off competitors or enhancing goodwill in a capital sense. The payment was therefore deductible as revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8068