https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289086 A payment made to a rival contractor to secure a contract by eliminating competition was held to be capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure, because it was incurred to acquire the contract itself and secure a profit-earning source. The court applied the principle that expenditure bringing into existence an enduring or capital advantage, or acquiring a profit-making asset, is not deductible merely because it is connected with business profits. The amount was therefore not allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:54:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289086 A payment made to a rival contractor to secure a contract by eliminating competition was held to be capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure, because it was incurred to acquire the contract itself and secure a profit-earning source. The court applied the principle that expenditure bringing into existence an enduring or capital advantage, or acquiring a profit-making asset, is not deductible merely because it is connected with business profits. The amount was therefore not allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289086