Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

44 ITR 689Supreme Court of India1962#2250 most cited

What is Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

To determine if an expenditure is capital or revenue, one must consider the nature of the business, the expenditure, the right acquired, and their inter-relation. The concept of 'enduring benefit' is descriptive and relative, not synonymous with perpetual.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Abdul Kayoom v CIT · K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom · 44 ITR 689 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · nature of business · nature of right acquired · section 10(2)(xv) · section 10(2)

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitrelinquishment of rightsection 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feesection 2(31)slump salesection 51going concernsection 40a(2)(b)enduring benefitsection 10(2)

Judgments citing Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs Associated • Companies Limited. 172 ITR 257 (SC) To the contrary, the Appellant distinguished above case laws from its f…

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs Associated • Companies Limited. 172 ITR 257 (SC) To the contrary, the Appellant distinguished above case laws from its f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Vatika Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2331/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Vatika Hospitality Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-20, Vs. 621A, Devika Tower, Room No. 333, 6, Nehru Tower, New E-2, Ara Centre, Delhi Jhandewalan Pan:Aaacv0695D Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. CS Agarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 271

…d principles laid down above and the Courts of law would not ordinarily interfere with such findings of fact if they have been arrived at on a proper application of those principles.” Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of KTM TM Abdul Kayoom versus CIT 44 ITR 689 (SC) has also held that none of the test laid down in various authorities either exhaustive or universal and further the each case depend on its own facts and close similarity between one case in another is not enough because even a single insignificant detail may alter the entire aspect. Furthermore Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of alembic chemic…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…6/Del./2015 • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) • DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) • Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) • M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 86 ITR 38 (SC) • Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT: 62 ITR 566 (SC) • CIT v. B.N. Elias & Co. (P.) Ltd.: 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) • CIT v. Hin…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 53 / 2000HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4113-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 247 / 2002HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4121-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

CIT vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 842 / 2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4108-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1198 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4107-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1183 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4106-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1191 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4105-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

C.I.T vs. Shankar Trading Co. Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 731 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4104-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co. P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 482 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4127-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 361 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4126-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1207 / 2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4125-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/731/2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4104-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1198/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4107-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1183/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4106-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/842/2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4108-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/45/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4122-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/50/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…purchase Khair wood, in Himachal Pradesh would be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 44 ITR 689. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee firm, which carried on business in the purchase and sale of conch (chank) shells, took on lease 2012:DHC:4123-DB ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/200…