https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277389 A voluntary payment out of managing agency commission, made to settle litigation and preserve the business, did not qualify under the first proviso to Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 because it was not an expense necessarily required by the terms of employment in performing duties; the amount therefore remained taxable under that head. The same payment was, however, allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) because it was incurred to remove a business difficulty, avoid publicity, and enable the agency to continue on existing lines, without creating any enduring asset or advantage of fixed capital. The amount was treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. en-us Fri, 09 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277389 A voluntary payment out of managing agency commission, made to settle litigation and preserve the business, did not qualify under the first proviso to Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 because it was not an expense necessarily required by the terms of employment in performing duties; the amount therefore remained taxable under that head. The same payment was, however, allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) because it was incurred to remove a business difficulty, avoid publicity, and enable the agency to continue on existing lines, without creating any enduring asset or advantage of fixed capital. The amount was treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277389