https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237305 Whether administrative expenses apportioned to projects shown as capital work in progress constitute revenue expenditure or capital was addressed; the court applied the principle that expenses incurred in construction yielding an enduring, inseparable advantage are capital, and that allowance of overheads as revenue requires verifiable records proving allocation to revenue operations. The assessee failed to maintain segregated time or overhead records and could not demonstrate a verifiable basis for bifurcation; accordingly the administrative expenses were held capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure, favouring the revenue over the assessee. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237305 Whether administrative expenses apportioned to projects shown as capital work in progress constitute revenue expenditure or capital was addressed; the court applied the principle that expenses incurred in construction yielding an enduring, inseparable advantage are capital, and that allowance of overheads as revenue requires verifiable records proving allocation to revenue operations. The assessee failed to maintain segregated time or overhead records and could not demonstrate a verifiable basis for bifurcation; accordingly the administrative expenses were held capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure, favouring the revenue over the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237305