← All Phrases

“revenue expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 373,350 judgments

The decision most relied on for revenue expenditure is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revenue expenditure

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

Judgments citing revenue expenditure

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 356/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

reduced the interest subsidy from the interest paid on various loans and therefore the interest income and interest expenditure both were treated as revenue expenditure and therefore the interest subsidy on technology upgradation fund was treated by the assessee itself as revenue expenditure. He further referred to the purpose

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

same is duly added back in the computation of income while calculating the business income as the same is already claimed as revenue expenditure in the subject AY 1998-99. It was also submitted that this fact may duly be verified from the computation of income of subsequent ... Schedule" to the agreement and these expenses relate to day-to-day running of the business and has been treated by the assessee as revenue expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the payment of INR 5,70,42,000 as capital expenditures. Page

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous and that the expenditure was not revenue expenditure but an expenditure of capital nature. He simply asked the Income- tax Officer to re-examine the matter. That, in our opinion, is not permissible ... revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the AO had not applied his mind on the issue. There

ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs. Capricorn Identity Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7420/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Acit, Circle 5(2), New Delhi M/S. Capricorn Identity Services P. Ltd, G-5, Vikas Deep Building, Plot No. 18, Vs. Lama Nagar, District Centre, Vikas Marg, New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr For Assessee : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Sahil Gupta, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 10.05.2019 For Ay 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Considering The Facts That The Business Activities Of The Assessee Company Had Not Commended During Ay 2016-17. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The A.O. Without Considering The Facts That The Assessee Has To Amortize Expenses Made Before The Commencement Of Business As Per The Provisions Of Section 35D Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The A.O. On Account Of Expenses Not Being Revenue In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 35D

jurisdictional High Court of Delhi (supra) we hold that the expenditure incurred during such a period has to be held as revenue expenditure and thus the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the same. We are unable to see any reason to interfere with the finding

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 42/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 41/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 40/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 39/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 66/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

ITA 170/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 167/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 97/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 163/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 143/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

The Dy. CIT- Cir.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfilds Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 152/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Regarding claim of "Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses" as revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the expenditure as capital in nature. But, the appellant company has been consistently claiming it as revenue expenditure. Even ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on claim of land revenue expenditure of Rs. 2.72 lakhs under the head miscellaneous expenditure. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

Balrajsingh Jagjitsingh Kharbanda, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

ITA 797/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh S. KothariFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan, DR
Section 0Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

business business business guests guests guests is is is an an an allowable allowable allowable expenditure, but the 'club membership fee' is not a revenue expenditure, but the 'club membership fee' is not a revenue expenditure, but the 'club membership fee' is not a revenue BalrajsinghJagjitsingh Kharbanda BalrajsinghJagjitsingh Kharbanda

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3527/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 11(1), Versus Hcl Comnet Systems & Services New Delhi. Ltd., 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 14A

capital. The next obvious question is, on what basis apportionment should be done and what could be the proportion of apportionment between capital and revenue expenditure. In this regard it would be appropriate and proper to divide the licence fee into two periods i.e. before and after ... should be treated as capital expenditure and licence fee on revenue sharing basis after 1-8-1999 should be treated as revenue expenditure. (ii) Capital expenditure will qualify for deduction as per section 35ABB. 32. Facts of the present case appears to be similar to the facts involved

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1125/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

only additions which survive in both the assessment years are the additions made on account of disallowance of non-compete fee claimed as revenue expenditure. It is a fact on record that this is a recurring issue between the assessee and the Revenue from past assessment years. The assessee ... been consistent in its position that the non-compete fee paid is allowable as revenue expenditure. However, according to the department, such payment has to be capitalized. In our view, whether non-compete fee is a revenue or capital expenditure is a highly debatable issue and the assessee over