https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252230 The High Court of Karnataka affirmed the Tribunal's ruling that expenditure on prototype development for optical networking products constituted revenue expenditure, not capital. The Court emphasized the constant need for product evolution in the competitive telecommunications market, supporting its decision with legal precedents. The Court left open the question of allowance under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act for future consideration, as the assessee prevailed on the primary issue. en-us Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:43:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252230 The High Court of Karnataka affirmed the Tribunal's ruling that expenditure on prototype development for optical networking products constituted revenue expenditure, not capital. The Court emphasized the constant need for product evolution in the competitive telecommunications market, supporting its decision with legal precedents. The Court left open the question of allowance under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act for future consideration, as the assessee prevailed on the primary issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252230