https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12347 The dominant issue was whether a lump-sum payment for purchase of a unit was capital or revenue expenditure, and if capital, whether it could be amortised as advance rent over 71 years. The HC held the payment was capital expenditure, as it secured an enduring advantage and was not a substitute for rent or repairs deductible under s. 30 of the Income-tax Act; SC precedent on reconstruction/repair expenditure yielding reduced rent was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal's direction to apportion the amount over 71 years as advance rent was legally unsustainable and self-contradictory, and was set aside; the Revenue's appeal was allowed and the cross-objections were dismissed. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Dec 2025 13:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12347 The dominant issue was whether a lump-sum payment for purchase of a unit was capital or revenue expenditure, and if capital, whether it could be amortised as advance rent over 71 years. The HC held the payment was capital expenditure, as it secured an enduring advantage and was not a substitute for rent or repairs deductible under s. 30 of the Income-tax Act; SC precedent on reconstruction/repair expenditure yielding reduced rent was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal's direction to apportion the amount over 71 years as advance rent was legally unsustainable and self-contradictory, and was set aside; the Revenue's appeal was allowed and the cross-objections were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12347