Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether litigation expenses incurred by the assessee in defending a civil suit concerning Murli Hills were capital expenditure incurred to acquire or protect a capital asset, or revenue expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business.
Analysis: The expenditure had to be judged by the nature and purpose of the litigation in relation to the assessee's business. The assessee did not institute the proceedings on its own; it was brought into the dispute because it was working the quarry as part of its business activities and a damages claim was made against it. On the facts found, the litigation was connected with the conduct and protection of the assessee's business and did not amount to expenditure for creating or improving a fixed capital asset. The final failure of the litigation did not alter the character of the expenditure if it was honestly and reasonably incurred for business purposes.
Conclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature and was allowable as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.
Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred in defending litigation is deductible as revenue expenditure where, judged by its nature and purpose, it is honestly and reasonably incurred to protect or promote the assessee's business and is not laid out for acquiring or improving a capital asset.