<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1973 (9) TMI 10 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9179</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred on a foreign trip to study technical know-how and improved designs for manufacturing electric hoists was held to be revenue in character. The decisive test was the real nature and purpose of the outlay: where spending is part of the profit-earning process, aimed at modernising or improving an existing business without acquiring a permanent asset or enduring advantage, it is not capital expenditure. Here, the assessee already manufactured the product, the trip was intended to understand better manufacturing methods, and the proposed collaboration was never implemented. No new capital asset or permanent right arose, so the expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (9) TMI 10 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9179</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred on a foreign trip to study technical know-how and improved designs for manufacturing electric hoists was held to be revenue in character. The decisive test was the real nature and purpose of the outlay: where spending is part of the profit-earning process, aimed at modernising or improving an existing business without acquiring a permanent asset or enduring advantage, it is not capital expenditure. Here, the assessee already manufactured the product, the trip was intended to understand better manufacturing methods, and the proposed collaboration was never implemented. No new capital asset or permanent right arose, so the expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>