https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264518 A settlement payment claimed as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required a clear factual determination on whether it was a capital outlay or an incurred for commercial expediency and protection of business goodwill. The HC held that the Tribunal's reasoning was internally contradictory because it treated the payment as being made to preserve goodwill and business continuity while also describing it as capital in nature and disallowable. As the agreement and surrounding facts were not properly analysed, the order could not stand on the existing findings and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 May 2016 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264518 A settlement payment claimed as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required a clear factual determination on whether it was a capital outlay or an incurred for commercial expediency and protection of business goodwill. The HC held that the Tribunal's reasoning was internally contradictory because it treated the payment as being made to preserve goodwill and business continuity while also describing it as capital in nature and disallowable. As the agreement and surrounding facts were not properly analysed, the order could not stand on the existing findings and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264518