https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368841 The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, determining that the disallowed expenditure of Rs. 2,08,92,603 was revenue in nature for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Court emphasized that the expenditure related to operational activities under a concessionaire agreement and did not qualify as capital loss. Additionally, the Court held that the liability to pay interest on the bank guarantee amount accrued when the High Court allowed encashment, regardless of the payment date. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the nature of the expenditure and taxation in case of arbitration success. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368841 The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, determining that the disallowed expenditure of Rs. 2,08,92,603 was revenue in nature for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Court emphasized that the expenditure related to operational activities under a concessionaire agreement and did not qualify as capital loss. Additionally, the Court held that the liability to pay interest on the bank guarantee amount accrued when the High Court allowed encashment, regardless of the payment date. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the nature of the expenditure and taxation in case of arbitration success. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368841