https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19948 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on all three main issues: (i) Expenses for social welfare measures were not allowable as revenue expenditure, (ii) Payment made to the occupant of land was classified as capital expenditure due to enhancing the land's value, and (iii) The assessee was denied weighted deduction under section 35B for export-related expenses. The court's decision was based on previous rulings and detailed reasoning, ultimately concluding against the assessee in the Income-tax Act reference. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:22:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19948 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on all three main issues: (i) Expenses for social welfare measures were not allowable as revenue expenditure, (ii) Payment made to the occupant of land was classified as capital expenditure due to enhancing the land's value, and (iii) The assessee was denied weighted deduction under section 35B for export-related expenses. The court's decision was based on previous rulings and detailed reasoning, ultimately concluding against the assessee in the Income-tax Act reference. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19948