<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19790</link>
    <description>HC held that additional liability arising from foreign exchange fluctuation on deferred instalments for imported machinery does not constitute revenue expenditure, following SC precedent. Applying section 43A, HC ruled that the increased liability, computed with reference to the outstanding foreign currency loan at year-end, must be added to the actual cost of the machinery for depreciation purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal&#039;s view that such sums did not form part of the machinery&#039;s cost was set aside. The first question was answered in favour of Revenue (not revenue expenditure), while the substantive question on capitalization was answered in favour of assessee, directing inclusion in actual cost under section 43A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19790</link>
      <description>HC held that additional liability arising from foreign exchange fluctuation on deferred instalments for imported machinery does not constitute revenue expenditure, following SC precedent. Applying section 43A, HC ruled that the increased liability, computed with reference to the outstanding foreign currency loan at year-end, must be added to the actual cost of the machinery for depreciation purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal&#039;s view that such sums did not form part of the machinery&#039;s cost was set aside. The first question was answered in favour of Revenue (not revenue expenditure), while the substantive question on capitalization was answered in favour of assessee, directing inclusion in actual cost under section 43A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>