https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248176 The court ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the expenditure incurred on improvements to leased premises should be considered as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court emphasized that if the expenditure facilitates trading operations without creating a permanent asset, it should be classified as revenue expenditure. Additionally, the court directed the revenue to consider all comparable cases for transfer pricing adjustments without discrimination based on financial outcomes. As a result, all substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, and the appeals were allowed, with assessing authorities instructed to recalculate the tax payable accordingly. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248176 The court ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the expenditure incurred on improvements to leased premises should be considered as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court emphasized that if the expenditure facilitates trading operations without creating a permanent asset, it should be classified as revenue expenditure. Additionally, the court directed the revenue to consider all comparable cases for transfer pricing adjustments without discrimination based on financial outcomes. As a result, all substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, and the appeals were allowed, with assessing authorities instructed to recalculate the tax payable accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248176