https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178887 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to admit fresh evidence and allow the assessee's claim for gratuity liability, despite the absence of an approved gratuity fund. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's classification of expenditure on furnace reconstruction as revenue expenditure, ruling it as capital expenditure instead. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178887 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to admit fresh evidence and allow the assessee's claim for gratuity liability, despite the absence of an approved gratuity fund. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's classification of expenditure on furnace reconstruction as revenue expenditure, ruling it as capital expenditure instead. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178887