<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (5) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64364</link>
    <description>Interest on delayed payment of telecom licence fee was treated as compensatory in nature and not as part of the capital cost of acquiring the licence, so section 35ABB did not apply and the deduction was allowed on accrual basis. Royalty payable for use of radio frequency was held to be a distinct contractual, revenue outgo unrelated to acquisition of the telecom licence, making section 35ABB inapplicable and the expense allowable as revenue expenditure. Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital were treated as expenditure connected with capital expansion and fell within section 35D(2)(c)(iv) to the extent permitted by that provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64364</link>
      <description>Interest on delayed payment of telecom licence fee was treated as compensatory in nature and not as part of the capital cost of acquiring the licence, so section 35ABB did not apply and the deduction was allowed on accrual basis. Royalty payable for use of radio frequency was held to be a distinct contractual, revenue outgo unrelated to acquisition of the telecom licence, making section 35ABB inapplicable and the expense allowable as revenue expenditure. Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital were treated as expenditure connected with capital expansion and fell within section 35D(2)(c)(iv) to the extent permitted by that provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>