Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The primary issue is classification of expenditure on railway track, conveyor belt and ventilation ducting as revenue or capital. The tribunal applied the enduring-benefit test: if expenditure creates an enduring asset for the business's permanent profit-earning apparatus it is capital; if it facilitates current contract operations and yields only temporary utility it is revenue. Applying this test, the tribunal found the site-specific railway siding, conveyor system and ventilation ducting were temporary, removable or functionally limited to the contract and did not enhance core capacity; accordingly the expenditure was revenue in nature and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
The primary issue is classification of expenditure on railway track, conveyor belt and ventilation ducting as revenue or capital. The tribunal applied the enduring-benefit test: if expenditure creates an enduring asset for the business's permanent profit-earning apparatus it is capital; if it facilitates current contract operations and yields only temporary utility it is revenue. Applying this test, the tribunal found the site-specific railway siding, conveyor system and ventilation ducting were temporary, removable or functionally limited to the contract and did not enhance core capacity; accordingly the expenditure was revenue in nature and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.