https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364323 The court determined that the expenditure incurred by the appellant in evicting occupants and acquiring possession of certain premises was capital in nature. The court emphasized that the expenditure led to the acquisition of an enduring right of possession over the property, indicating a capital nature rather than revenue. The judgment favored the revenue authorities, highlighting the enduring benefits obtained through the expenditure, which classified it as capital expenditure. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the expenditure was not revenue but capital expenditure based on the enduring nature and permanence of the rights acquired. en-us Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364323 The court determined that the expenditure incurred by the appellant in evicting occupants and acquiring possession of certain premises was capital in nature. The court emphasized that the expenditure led to the acquisition of an enduring right of possession over the property, indicating a capital nature rather than revenue. The judgment favored the revenue authorities, highlighting the enduring benefits obtained through the expenditure, which classified it as capital expenditure. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the expenditure was not revenue but capital expenditure based on the enduring nature and permanence of the rights acquired. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364323