https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346065 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the assessee in a tax dispute. The court ruled that the premium paid on a leased plot was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, as it did not result in the acquisition of a permanent asset. Additionally, the court found that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable as the recipient was not a shareholder in the lending company. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decisions on both issues. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346065 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the assessee in a tax dispute. The court ruled that the premium paid on a leased plot was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, as it did not result in the acquisition of a permanent asset. Additionally, the court found that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable as the recipient was not a shareholder in the lending company. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decisions on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346065