https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23801 The High Court held that the amount paid for amending the memorandum and articles of association to increase authorized capital is capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Court distinguished the nature of expenses for increasing capital from those for amendments to comply with legal changes, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The claim for Rs. 7,500 as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1974-75 was disallowed, affirming that such expenditure is of a capital nature. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:21:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23801 The High Court held that the amount paid for amending the memorandum and articles of association to increase authorized capital is capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Court distinguished the nature of expenses for increasing capital from those for amendments to comply with legal changes, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The claim for Rs. 7,500 as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1974-75 was disallowed, affirming that such expenditure is of a capital nature. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23801