https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24725 The High Court held that legal expenses incurred to protect assets or rights in the existing business are deductible. Expenses related to defending a suit by shareholders were considered revenue expenditure, while expenses for specific performance were capital expenditure. The Court found the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for further investigation on borrowed funds without evidence of their use. The Tribunal's disposal of the appeal lacked justification due to the absence of evidence on borrowed funds utilization. The Tribunal's order reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remanding the matter was deemed invalid. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:17:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24725 The High Court held that legal expenses incurred to protect assets or rights in the existing business are deductible. Expenses related to defending a suit by shareholders were considered revenue expenditure, while expenses for specific performance were capital expenditure. The Court found the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for further investigation on borrowed funds without evidence of their use. The Tribunal's disposal of the appeal lacked justification due to the absence of evidence on borrowed funds utilization. The Tribunal's order reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remanding the matter was deemed invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24725