https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330081 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that expenditure towards bank charges for a new project constituted capital expenditure, requiring capitalization. It emphasized that for expenses to be deductible under relevant tax sections, the business must be established and ready to commence operations. The court clarified that the mere acquisition of property or construction period does not equate to setting up a business, which must be genuinely established before deductions can be claimed. The appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the revenue authorities as the business was considered set up only upon commencement of operations. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330081 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that expenditure towards bank charges for a new project constituted capital expenditure, requiring capitalization. It emphasized that for expenses to be deductible under relevant tax sections, the business must be established and ready to commence operations. The court clarified that the mere acquisition of property or construction period does not equate to setting up a business, which must be genuinely established before deductions can be claimed. The appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the revenue authorities as the business was considered set up only upon commencement of operations. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330081