https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262034 Dry docking expenditure was treated as revenue in nature, following the view taken in earlier connected appeals. Royalty paid to the State Government on the international price, rather than the discounted sale price, was held allowable as business expenditure under section 37 because it was made pursuant to Government policy and directions, not as an unlawful or prohibited payment. Section 6A of the Oilfield (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, read with the relevant Government resolution, notification and communication, did not require royalty to be confined to the discounted sale price, and the expenditure satisfied the requirements of section 37. The appellate challenges therefore failed. en-us Thu, 21 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262034 Dry docking expenditure was treated as revenue in nature, following the view taken in earlier connected appeals. Royalty paid to the State Government on the international price, rather than the discounted sale price, was held allowable as business expenditure under section 37 because it was made pursuant to Government policy and directions, not as an unlawful or prohibited payment. Section 6A of the Oilfield (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, read with the relevant Government resolution, notification and communication, did not require royalty to be confined to the discounted sale price, and the expenditure satisfied the requirements of section 37. The appellate challenges therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262034