https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256732 The SC upheld the Tribunal's decision quashing the revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind by examining detailed submissions and taking a possible view on the nature of expenditure. The brand-building expenses of Rs. 2.94 crores were predominantly treated as revenue expenditure, with only Rs. 17.98 lakhs disallowed as capital expenditure. The ruling reinforced that a possible view by the AO cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 09:20:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256732 The SC upheld the Tribunal's decision quashing the revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind by examining detailed submissions and taking a possible view on the nature of expenditure. The brand-building expenses of Rs. 2.94 crores were predominantly treated as revenue expenditure, with only Rs. 17.98 lakhs disallowed as capital expenditure. The ruling reinforced that a possible view by the AO cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256732