https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18741 The court ruled against the assessee regarding the exchange difference and interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, considering them as capital expenditures and not allowable as revenue expenditure. However, the court favored the assessee in the case of royalty paid on the trade mark, deeming it as revenue expenditure for improving product quality and marketability. The court's detailed analysis led to a split decision, ultimately resulting in a judgment in favor of the Revenue for issues 1 and 3, and in favor of the assessee for issue 2. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18741 The court ruled against the assessee regarding the exchange difference and interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, considering them as capital expenditures and not allowable as revenue expenditure. However, the court favored the assessee in the case of royalty paid on the trade mark, deeming it as revenue expenditure for improving product quality and marketability. The court's detailed analysis led to a split decision, ultimately resulting in a judgment in favor of the Revenue for issues 1 and 3, and in favor of the assessee for issue 2. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18741