https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355662 The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position that brand building expenditure was revenue in nature, emphasizing the primary purpose of conducting business effectively and profitably. Despite an incidental increase in brand value, the expenditure was deemed necessary for sustaining in the market, qualifying as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals by the Revenue, aligning with the principle that distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure requires a case-by-case analysis based on factual considerations. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355662 The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position that brand building expenditure was revenue in nature, emphasizing the primary purpose of conducting business effectively and profitably. Despite an incidental increase in brand value, the expenditure was deemed necessary for sustaining in the market, qualifying as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals by the Revenue, aligning with the principle that distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure requires a case-by-case analysis based on factual considerations. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355662