https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240474 The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of most expenditures as capital expenditure, remanding some issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the difference in exchange on FCCBs as revenue expenditure, confirmed the treatment of development expenditure as capital, and directed reevaluation of provisions for warranties. Various disallowances under different sections were either upheld, remanded, or allowed based on prior decisions and legal principles, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the case's multiple issues. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240474 The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of most expenditures as capital expenditure, remanding some issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the difference in exchange on FCCBs as revenue expenditure, confirmed the treatment of development expenditure as capital, and directed reevaluation of provisions for warranties. Various disallowances under different sections were either upheld, remanded, or allowed based on prior decisions and legal principles, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the case's multiple issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240474