https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14155 The dominant issues were whether fees paid to the Registrar for filing notice of increase in authorised share capital were revenue expenditure and whether such fees were eligible for amortisation under s. 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. Applying SC rulings that expenditure connected with issue of shares to increase share capital expands the capital base, the HC held the fees were capital in nature despite any incidental business benefit, and disallowed deduction as revenue expenditure in favour of the Revenue. Construing the Companies Act and Schedule X, the HC held item 3 fees for increase of nominal share capital are conceptually distinct from fees for registration/incorporation, so they are not "fees for registration of a company" under s. 35D(2)(c)(iii), and amortisation was denied in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14155 The dominant issues were whether fees paid to the Registrar for filing notice of increase in authorised share capital were revenue expenditure and whether such fees were eligible for amortisation under s. 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. Applying SC rulings that expenditure connected with issue of shares to increase share capital expands the capital base, the HC held the fees were capital in nature despite any incidental business benefit, and disallowed deduction as revenue expenditure in favour of the Revenue. Construing the Companies Act and Schedule X, the HC held item 3 fees for increase of nominal share capital are conceptually distinct from fees for registration/incorporation, so they are not "fees for registration of a company" under s. 35D(2)(c)(iii), and amortisation was denied in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14155