https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366339 The High Court held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards an abandoned textile project was revenue expenditure, not capital, as it facilitated business operations and did not acquire a capital asset. The Court found errors in applying precedent and emphasized unity of control, management, and common fund as decisive factors. Relying on relevant judicial precedents, the Court allowed the appeal, stating that the nature of advantage in a commercial sense is crucial in distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure. The expenditure was deemed allowable as a deduction. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366339 The High Court held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards an abandoned textile project was revenue expenditure, not capital, as it facilitated business operations and did not acquire a capital asset. The Court found errors in applying precedent and emphasized unity of control, management, and common fund as decisive factors. Relying on relevant judicial precedents, the Court allowed the appeal, stating that the nature of advantage in a commercial sense is crucial in distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure. The expenditure was deemed allowable as a deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366339