https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13949 The dominant issue was whether expenditure incurred for issuing debentures was deductible, and whether the Tribunal's finding allowing the deduction was unsupported by relevant material or perverse in light of s. 35D. The HC held that s. 35D permits amortisation of specified capital expenditure where such capital outlay is otherwise not deductible, but does not justify denying a deduction that is otherwise allowable as revenue expenditure. Given the admitted terms that the debenture loan was repayable within eleven years and that partial repayment through issue of shares to enhance attractiveness did not alter the loan's repayment character, the Tribunal's view was not perverse. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:48:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13949 The dominant issue was whether expenditure incurred for issuing debentures was deductible, and whether the Tribunal's finding allowing the deduction was unsupported by relevant material or perverse in light of s. 35D. The HC held that s. 35D permits amortisation of specified capital expenditure where such capital outlay is otherwise not deductible, but does not justify denying a deduction that is otherwise allowable as revenue expenditure. Given the admitted terms that the debenture loan was repayable within eleven years and that partial repayment through issue of shares to enhance attractiveness did not alter the loan's repayment character, the Tribunal's view was not perverse. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13949