https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7380 Legal and travelling expenses incurred to protect a shareholder's existing investment in company litigation were treated as revenue expenditure, because they did not create or improve any capital asset and were directed only to preserving the investment and its income-earning capacity. The Court held that expenditure made on commercial expediency to safeguard dividend yield remained allowable under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The fact that other persons also benefited, or that a prudent investor might not have borne the whole cost, did not change the character of the expenditure or take it outside the provision. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7380 Legal and travelling expenses incurred to protect a shareholder's existing investment in company litigation were treated as revenue expenditure, because they did not create or improve any capital asset and were directed only to preserving the investment and its income-earning capacity. The Court held that expenditure made on commercial expediency to safeguard dividend yield remained allowable under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The fact that other persons also benefited, or that a prudent investor might not have borne the whole cost, did not change the character of the expenditure or take it outside the provision. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7380