https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270424 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the payment made for the windmill project constituted capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal determined that the payment was a capital advance for acquiring a capital asset, emphasizing that the loss was related to an investment, not regular business activities. Despite the assessee's argument that the loss was a write-off of an imaginary asset, the Tribunal held that the payment was for creating an asset. Legal precedents supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270424 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the payment made for the windmill project constituted capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal determined that the payment was a capital advance for acquiring a capital asset, emphasizing that the loss was related to an investment, not regular business activities. Despite the assessee's argument that the loss was a write-off of an imaginary asset, the Tribunal held that the payment was for creating an asset. Legal precedents supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270424