https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29212 A payment made under a tripartite agreement to restrain a competitor from manufacturing and selling specified glass products for five years was treated as capital expenditure. The court applied the distinction between revenue outlay for day-to-day trading and expenditure that secures an enduring business advantage. Because the arrangement removed a competitor from the field for a defined period and strengthened the assessee's profit-earning structure in a market affected by excess capacity and rivalry, the advantage was held to be in the capital field. The expenditure was therefore not allowable as a revenue deduction. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:08:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29212 A payment made under a tripartite agreement to restrain a competitor from manufacturing and selling specified glass products for five years was treated as capital expenditure. The court applied the distinction between revenue outlay for day-to-day trading and expenditure that secures an enduring business advantage. Because the arrangement removed a competitor from the field for a defined period and strengthened the assessee's profit-earning structure in a market affected by excess capacity and rivalry, the advantage was held to be in the capital field. The expenditure was therefore not allowable as a revenue deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29212