https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218310 The Court upheld the disallowance of amortization cost of land, considering it as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. It also ruled against the deductibility of premium/lumpsum amounts paid for long lease land as revenue expenditure, emphasizing the capital nature of the expenditure based on lease agreements and rights conferred upon the lessee. The Court dismissed the appeals, favoring the Revenue and concluding that the expenditure in question constituted capital expenditure, not eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218310 The Court upheld the disallowance of amortization cost of land, considering it as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. It also ruled against the deductibility of premium/lumpsum amounts paid for long lease land as revenue expenditure, emphasizing the capital nature of the expenditure based on lease agreements and rights conferred upon the lessee. The Court dismissed the appeals, favoring the Revenue and concluding that the expenditure in question constituted capital expenditure, not eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218310