https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348410 Compensation paid for mining-related rights infringement was treated as revenue expenditure because it formed part of the recurring operational cost of extraction. Section 14A disallowance was confined to expenditure linked to exempt dividend income, with subsidiary investments excluded and the matter sent back for recomputation. Industrial promotion assistance and interest subsidy were held to be capital receipts and not to reduce actual cost under section 43(1). Balance additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days was allowed in the following year. Leave-encashment provision was restored for reconsideration, and earlier years' absorbed depreciation could not be notionally brought forward to reduce the section 80IA deduction. en-us Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:44:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348410 Compensation paid for mining-related rights infringement was treated as revenue expenditure because it formed part of the recurring operational cost of extraction. Section 14A disallowance was confined to expenditure linked to exempt dividend income, with subsidiary investments excluded and the matter sent back for recomputation. Industrial promotion assistance and interest subsidy were held to be capital receipts and not to reduce actual cost under section 43(1). Balance additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days was allowed in the following year. Leave-encashment provision was restored for reconsideration, and earlier years' absorbed depreciation could not be notionally brought forward to reduce the section 80IA deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348410