https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49686 Whether lease payments in specified clauses amounted to capital expenditure was decided by applying the capital-revenue distinction: the enduring-advantage test (payments that create an asset or advantage of lasting benefit), the once-and-for-all versus recurring expenditure test, and the fixed-versus-circulating-capital inquiry. The Court found each payment purchased a protection or advantage that enured to the business over the lease term, enhancing the capital asset's profit-yielding capacity; the instalment character did not convert the acquisition into revenue expenditure. Outcome: the payments were held to be capital and not deductible under the relevant income-tax provision. en-us Thu, 11 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49686 Whether lease payments in specified clauses amounted to capital expenditure was decided by applying the capital-revenue distinction: the enduring-advantage test (payments that create an asset or advantage of lasting benefit), the once-and-for-all versus recurring expenditure test, and the fixed-versus-circulating-capital inquiry. The Court found each payment purchased a protection or advantage that enured to the business over the lease term, enhancing the capital asset's profit-yielding capacity; the instalment character did not convert the acquisition into revenue expenditure. Outcome: the payments were held to be capital and not deductible under the relevant income-tax provision. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49686