https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344994 The court ruled in favor of the Assessee, determining that the guarantee commission paid for securing timely loan repayment for machinery and equipment constitutes revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. Citing relevant case law and emphasizing the necessity of borrowing for business operations, the court concluded that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure. The judgment aligned with precedents such as Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Addl. CIT vs. Akkamba Textiles Ltd., and Sivakashi Mills Ltd., ultimately disposing of the reference in the Assessee's favor without costs. en-us Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jul 2017 18:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344994 The court ruled in favor of the Assessee, determining that the guarantee commission paid for securing timely loan repayment for machinery and equipment constitutes revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. Citing relevant case law and emphasizing the necessity of borrowing for business operations, the court concluded that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure. The judgment aligned with precedents such as Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Addl. CIT vs. Akkamba Textiles Ltd., and Sivakashi Mills Ltd., ultimately disposing of the reference in the Assessee's favor without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344994