https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334414 ITAT Mumbai held that consultancy charges for relocating and rearranging existing assets and furniture were revenue expenditure because no new asset or enduring advantage was created, so the capital disallowance was not justified. It also held that payments to non-residents for production-related job work and ancillary services were not subject to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) because they were not chargeable to tax in India and no withholding obligation arose. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334414 ITAT Mumbai held that consultancy charges for relocating and rearranging existing assets and furniture were revenue expenditure because no new asset or enduring advantage was created, so the capital disallowance was not justified. It also held that payments to non-residents for production-related job work and ancillary services were not subject to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) because they were not chargeable to tax in India and no withholding obligation arose. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334414