https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11269 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessees. The expenses shared with M/s. Dynavision Ltd. and the difference in purchase price were deemed allowable as expenditure for the assessment year 1992-93. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the expenditures were a tax avoidance device, emphasizing the commercial expediency and necessity of the payments for promoting products and maintaining the business relationship. The expenses were considered legitimate and necessary for the assessees' business operations, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessees against the Revenue. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11269 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessees. The expenses shared with M/s. Dynavision Ltd. and the difference in purchase price were deemed allowable as expenditure for the assessment year 1992-93. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the expenditures were a tax avoidance device, emphasizing the commercial expediency and necessity of the payments for promoting products and maintaining the business relationship. The expenses were considered legitimate and necessary for the assessees' business operations, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessees against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11269