https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18336 The court held that the expenditure on royalty to retired partners should be treated as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The expenditure was aimed at outbidding a competitor and securing a monopoly in soap manufacturing for 15 years, aligning with the nature of the covenant. The court referenced previous cases where similar payments were considered capital expenditure for gaining a competitive advantage over time. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the expenditure was capital in nature and not solely for the business, supporting the Tribunal's decision. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:32:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18336 The court held that the expenditure on royalty to retired partners should be treated as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The expenditure was aimed at outbidding a competitor and securing a monopoly in soap manufacturing for 15 years, aligning with the nature of the covenant. The court referenced previous cases where similar payments were considered capital expenditure for gaining a competitive advantage over time. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the expenditure was capital in nature and not solely for the business, supporting the Tribunal's decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18336