https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334240 HC upheld the Tribunal's findings: the addition for guarantee commission was unjustified because external bank comparables were unreliable (missing year and context) and internal comparables were not examined; prior tribunal deletions stood and Revenue had not contested them, so the addition could not be sustained. On advertising, HC held corporate/brand television advertising was revenue expenditure - aimed at maintaining corporate image and facilitating sales/profitability rather than creating enduring capital asset - and thus properly allowable as business expenditure. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334240 HC upheld the Tribunal's findings: the addition for guarantee commission was unjustified because external bank comparables were unreliable (missing year and context) and internal comparables were not examined; prior tribunal deletions stood and Revenue had not contested them, so the addition could not be sustained. On advertising, HC held corporate/brand television advertising was revenue expenditure - aimed at maintaining corporate image and facilitating sales/profitability rather than creating enduring capital asset - and thus properly allowable as business expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334240