https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208923 The court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal due to the respondent-assessee's counsel not objecting. Regarding the treatment of deferred revenue expenditure for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the court upheld the decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It emphasized the application of the matching concept and the need to consider the commercial sense in determining expenditure treatment. The court dismissed the appeals, rejecting the Revenue's claim for deferring revenue expense and stressing the importance of consistency in applying tax laws and past decisions. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208923 The court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal due to the respondent-assessee's counsel not objecting. Regarding the treatment of deferred revenue expenditure for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the court upheld the decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It emphasized the application of the matching concept and the need to consider the commercial sense in determining expenditure treatment. The court dismissed the appeals, rejecting the Revenue's claim for deferring revenue expense and stressing the importance of consistency in applying tax laws and past decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208923