https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325507 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, affirming the revenue nature of the disputed expenditures. The disallowance of agency commission as capital expenditure was rejected, citing relevant case law. Similarly, the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds for acquiring capital assets was also ruled in favor of the assessee based on Supreme Court precedent. Lastly, the expenditure on software development was deemed revenue expenditure as it facilitated trading operations without creating a new asset, aligning with the Court's interpretation of relevant case law. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325507 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, affirming the revenue nature of the disputed expenditures. The disallowance of agency commission as capital expenditure was rejected, citing relevant case law. Similarly, the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds for acquiring capital assets was also ruled in favor of the assessee based on Supreme Court precedent. Lastly, the expenditure on software development was deemed revenue expenditure as it facilitated trading operations without creating a new asset, aligning with the Court's interpretation of relevant case law. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325507