https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198250 The court held that expenses on interest and financial charges related to loans for installing a unit should be treated as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. It also analyzed other expenses like advertisement costs for a public issue and interest payments for expansion schemes, concluding that certain deductions were justified. The court emphasized the enduring benefit principle in distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditures, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Department's appeals. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2018 10:03:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198250 The court held that expenses on interest and financial charges related to loans for installing a unit should be treated as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. It also analyzed other expenses like advertisement costs for a public issue and interest payments for expansion schemes, concluding that certain deductions were justified. The court emphasized the enduring benefit principle in distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditures, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Department's appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198250