https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202726 Where branch-setting expenditure had been consistently amortised over ten years and accepted by the Department, closure of the branch did not create any legal basis to accelerate the remaining deduction. In the absence of a statutory provision permitting immediate write-off, the unabsorbed balance had to continue to be apportioned over the remaining years along with the other carried forward expenditure. The claim for full deduction in the year of closure was therefore rejected, and amortisation over the balance period was sustained in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202726 Where branch-setting expenditure had been consistently amortised over ten years and accepted by the Department, closure of the branch did not create any legal basis to accelerate the remaining deduction. In the absence of a statutory provision permitting immediate write-off, the unabsorbed balance had to continue to be apportioned over the remaining years along with the other carried forward expenditure. The claim for full deduction in the year of closure was therefore rejected, and amortisation over the balance period was sustained in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202726