https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289086 The court ruled against the assessee, affirming the decision of the Income Tax Commissioner, and ordered the assessee to pay costs. The payment made to prevent a competitor from bidding for a contract was not considered a deductible expenditure for income tax purposes under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the distinction between capital payments and deductible expenditures, citing relevant English cases to support its decision. Justices Beasley and Nair concurred with the Chief Justice, resulting in a unanimous judgment upholding the disallowance of the payment as a deductible expenditure. 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 The court ruled against the assessee, affirming the decision of the Income Tax Commissioner, and ordered the assessee to pay costs. The payment made to prevent a competitor from bidding for a contract was not considered a deductible expenditure for income tax purposes under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the distinction between capital payments and deductible expenditures, citing relevant English cases to support its decision. Justices Beasley and Nair concurred with the Chief Justice, resulting in a unanimous judgment upholding the disallowance of the payment as a deductible expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289086