https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290617 Litigation costs incurred to defend a leasehold monopoly and preserve quarrying rights were treated as capital expenditure because they protected an enduring business asset, not a recurring trading outlay. Applying the distinction between once-and-for-all payments and revenue expenditure, the legal expenses were characterised as a non-recurring cost incurred to retain the source of business profits. The fact that the expenditure was connected with the carrying on of business did not make it deductible, since expenditure directed to preserving a capital asset remains capital in nature. Accordingly, no deduction was allowable under the relevant allowance provision. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:06:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290617 Litigation costs incurred to defend a leasehold monopoly and preserve quarrying rights were treated as capital expenditure because they protected an enduring business asset, not a recurring trading outlay. Applying the distinction between once-and-for-all payments and revenue expenditure, the legal expenses were characterised as a non-recurring cost incurred to retain the source of business profits. The fact that the expenditure was connected with the carrying on of business did not make it deductible, since expenditure directed to preserving a capital asset remains capital in nature. Accordingly, no deduction was allowable under the relevant allowance provision. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290617