https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378680 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of the lease premium as capital expenditure, affirming it as such. However, the Court held that expenditure related to an increase in share capital is considered capital expenditure and not eligible for depreciation. Additionally, the Court rejected the contention that an industrial undertaking could amortize expenditure under section 35D, referencing a judgment allowing a banking company to be considered an industrial undertaking for such purposes. The appeal was admitted for consideration of substantial questions of law on these matters. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378680 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of the lease premium as capital expenditure, affirming it as such. However, the Court held that expenditure related to an increase in share capital is considered capital expenditure and not eligible for depreciation. Additionally, the Court rejected the contention that an industrial undertaking could amortize expenditure under section 35D, referencing a judgment allowing a banking company to be considered an industrial undertaking for such purposes. The appeal was admitted for consideration of substantial questions of law on these matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378680