https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17873 The court affirmed that expenses such as gas, electricity, and telephone costs are not perquisites under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. It clarified that fees for increasing authorized capital are capital expenditures, while bank guarantee commissions and excess loan repayment due to exchange rate differences are also considered capital expenses. Additionally, the court ruled that gratuity payments from an approved fund should not be included in the computation for section 40A(5). The decision regarding the fair market value substitution for capital gains computation was upheld, providing clarity on the application of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:13:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17873 The court affirmed that expenses such as gas, electricity, and telephone costs are not perquisites under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. It clarified that fees for increasing authorized capital are capital expenditures, while bank guarantee commissions and excess loan repayment due to exchange rate differences are also considered capital expenses. Additionally, the court ruled that gratuity payments from an approved fund should not be included in the computation for section 40A(5). The decision regarding the fair market value substitution for capital gains computation was upheld, providing clarity on the application of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17873