The assessee claimed the payment to Texmaco for the purpose of having continuous supply of  limestone as a raw material as revenue expenditure. The AO treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO . On appeal the  Tribunal held that payment made to Texmaco as deferred revenue expenditure thereby permitting the assessee to amortise the payment for a period of eight years . Reversing the order of the Tribunal the Court held that the responded had obtained a long term capitive source of the new raw material by purchase of right from Texmaco. However at the same time the raw material was required to be won , gotten and brought to the surface and as such , cannot be said to be  a stock in trade , hence the question was answered in the negative and in favour of appellant . Followed R.B Seth Moolcahnd Suganchand v CIT (1972) 86 ITR 647 (SC)      (ITA No 51 of 2008 dt 22-11-2019 / 2 -01 2020) (AY.1995 -96)