https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276909 Payments for an indefinite right to enter land, mark, fell and remove standing timber were treated as capital outlay because the agreement conveyed an enduring right to exploit timber rather than circulating stock for immediate trading turnover. The trees were unascertained at contract stage, and property in any tree passed only on severance, so the sums were not deductible trading expenditure in computing profits under Case I of Schedule D. On the same facts, the contractual rights were characterised as a capital asset and not stock-in-trade. The appeal failed by majority, with a dissenting view that the timber was trading stock and the payments were circulating capital. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:13:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276909 Payments for an indefinite right to enter land, mark, fell and remove standing timber were treated as capital outlay because the agreement conveyed an enduring right to exploit timber rather than circulating stock for immediate trading turnover. The trees were unascertained at contract stage, and property in any tree passed only on severance, so the sums were not deductible trading expenditure in computing profits under Case I of Schedule D. On the same facts, the contractual rights were characterised as a capital asset and not stock-in-trade. The appeal failed by majority, with a dissenting view that the timber was trading stock and the payments were circulating capital. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276909