https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23134 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. Firstly, the expenditure incurred for increasing the authorized share capital was treated as revenue expenditure as it was necessary to comply with statutory requirements for business operations and did not result in enduring benefits. Secondly, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act despite the factory being operational for only part of the year, based on precedents and a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23134 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. Firstly, the expenditure incurred for increasing the authorized share capital was treated as revenue expenditure as it was necessary to comply with statutory requirements for business operations and did not result in enduring benefits. Secondly, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act despite the factory being operational for only part of the year, based on precedents and a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23134