Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6861 to 6880 of 96504 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Non-compete fee paid by an assessee was examined for classification as capital or revenue expenditure. The enduring benefit test was held non-determinative where the advantage is not in the capital field; since the payment only kept a potential competitor at bay, did not create a monopoly, did not result in acquisition of a new business, and did not add to the profit-making apparatus, it was held allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary view was set aside. Interest on borrowed funds used to acquire shares in a subsidiary/associate to obtain controlling interest was held incurred for commercial expediency; interest deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) was allowed and the revenue's challenge dismissed. - SC
Non-compete fee paid by an assessee was examined for classification as capital or revenue expenditure. The enduring benefit test was held non-determinative where the advantage is not in the capital field; since the payment only kept a potential competitor at bay, did not create a monopoly, did not result in acquisition of a new business, and did not add to the profit-making apparatus, it was held allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary view was set aside. Interest on borrowed funds used to acquire shares in a subsidiary/associate to obtain controlling interest was held incurred for commercial expediency; interest deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) was allowed and the revenue's challenge dismissed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.