https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193452 The article addresses whether two payments under lease clauses were capital or revenue. Applying established tests (purpose at inception, enduring benefit, and one time acquisition despite instalments), the payments financed restrictive covenants that sterilised competition and conferred lasting business advantage. The obligations operated as purchase of an enduring protection enhancing the business's profit yielding capacity, not as annual operational hire. Periodic payment did not alter character where consideration and advantage were fixed. Conclusion: the outlays constitute capital expenditure and are not allowable as revenue deductions under the Income tax Act provision cited. en-us Thu, 07 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:54:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193452 The article addresses whether two payments under lease clauses were capital or revenue. Applying established tests (purpose at inception, enduring benefit, and one time acquisition despite instalments), the payments financed restrictive covenants that sterilised competition and conferred lasting business advantage. The obligations operated as purchase of an enduring protection enhancing the business's profit yielding capacity, not as annual operational hire. Periodic payment did not alter character where consideration and advantage were fixed. Conclusion: the outlays constitute capital expenditure and are not allowable as revenue deductions under the Income tax Act provision cited. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193452