https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236270 Advertisement expense for launching a new product was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not create a new capital asset and accounting treatment as deferred revenue was not decisive; the disallowance was deleted. Warranty provision was allowed as an accrued business liability, since the obligation arose from past sales and was capable of reliable estimation on scientific and historical data. Royalty provision was not hit by section 40(a)(i) because tax had been deducted and the statutory conditions for disallowance were not satisfied. The entertainment expense disallowance was also rejected, as the issue had already been accepted on similar facts in the assessee's own case. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236270 Advertisement expense for launching a new product was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not create a new capital asset and accounting treatment as deferred revenue was not decisive; the disallowance was deleted. Warranty provision was allowed as an accrued business liability, since the obligation arose from past sales and was capable of reliable estimation on scientific and historical data. Royalty provision was not hit by section 40(a)(i) because tax had been deducted and the statutory conditions for disallowance were not satisfied. The entertainment expense disallowance was also rejected, as the issue had already been accepted on similar facts in the assessee's own case. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236270