https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190076 The High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, confirming that the payment made for compensatory afforestation should be treated as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court agreed that the amount incurred by the respondent was related to fulfilling the obligation directed by the Supreme Court and should be allowed as a revenue expenditure in the year it was paid. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the payment was for compensatory afforestation and not solely attributable to the financial year under consideration. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190076 The High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, confirming that the payment made for compensatory afforestation should be treated as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court agreed that the amount incurred by the respondent was related to fulfilling the obligation directed by the Supreme Court and should be allowed as a revenue expenditure in the year it was paid. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the payment was for compensatory afforestation and not solely attributable to the financial year under consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190076