https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49464 A lease payment made for the exclusive right to fish for and carry away chanks was treated by the majority as capital expenditure, because it secured an enduring business advantage and the source from which trading goods could be obtained, rather than stock-in-trade itself. The right was viewed as part of the capital structure needed to carry on the business, so the amount was not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The dissent considered the payment to be for obtaining stock-in-trade and therefore revenue in nature. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49464 A lease payment made for the exclusive right to fish for and carry away chanks was treated by the majority as capital expenditure, because it secured an enduring business advantage and the source from which trading goods could be obtained, rather than stock-in-trade itself. The right was viewed as part of the capital structure needed to carry on the business, so the amount was not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The dissent considered the payment to be for obtaining stock-in-trade and therefore revenue in nature. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49464