https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245619 The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the disallowance of expenses under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It ruled that the conversion charges were capital in nature, benefiting the individual partners rather than the partnership firm. The enduring benefit derived from the conversion was deemed to be attached to the property owners, not the firm, leading to the conclusion that the expenditure was capital and not a revenue expense of the partnership firm. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:55:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245619 The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the disallowance of expenses under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It ruled that the conversion charges were capital in nature, benefiting the individual partners rather than the partnership firm. The enduring benefit derived from the conversion was deemed to be attached to the property owners, not the firm, leading to the conclusion that the expenditure was capital and not a revenue expense of the partnership firm. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245619