https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19208 The court held that damages paid for breach of contract for a capital asset cannot be considered revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business to be allowed as a deduction. Citing legal precedents, the court concluded that damages for breach of contract related to capital assets are capital expenditures and not allowable deductions under section 37. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Department, denying the claim for deduction of damages paid by the assessee. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:22:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19208 The court held that damages paid for breach of contract for a capital asset cannot be considered revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business to be allowed as a deduction. Citing legal precedents, the court concluded that damages for breach of contract related to capital assets are capital expenditures and not allowable deductions under section 37. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Department, denying the claim for deduction of damages paid by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19208