https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1940 HC held that expenditure on erecting a building on leased land is revenue, not capital, for purposes of Explanation 1 to s.32(1). The Explanation applies where construction or improvement is made to a building taken on lease, but not where a building is constructed on land taken on lease. Because no capital asset (land) was acquired and the construction served business advantage, the construction cost was allowable as revenue expenditure. Appeals dismissed. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1940 HC held that expenditure on erecting a building on leased land is revenue, not capital, for purposes of Explanation 1 to s.32(1). The Explanation applies where construction or improvement is made to a building taken on lease, but not where a building is constructed on land taken on lease. Because no capital asset (land) was acquired and the construction served business advantage, the construction cost was allowable as revenue expenditure. Appeals dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1940