https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256716 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three substantial questions of law raised in the case. It held that the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act was unjustified as the borrowed capital was used for business purposes. Additionally, the guarantee commission was considered a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, and the bank guarantee commission was deemed admissible based on legal precedents. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and sided with the assessee on all issues. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:39:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256716 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three substantial questions of law raised in the case. It held that the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act was unjustified as the borrowed capital was used for business purposes. Additionally, the guarantee commission was considered a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, and the bank guarantee commission was deemed admissible based on legal precedents. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and sided with the assessee on all issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256716