<?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>1988 (4) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24844</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred in connection with issuing new shares is characterised as capital expenditure because its object was to strengthen the company&#039;s capital structure; consequently such costs are not deductible as business revenue expenditure. The court distinguished fees paid merely to obtain permission to increase authorised capital (which may be noncapital if not resulting in actual capital increase) from brokerage and commission paid on an actual share issue, which are capital in nature and not allowable. The matter was remanded for verification under appellate remand procedure on one issue, and a certification was refused on the principal question favouring the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 23:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24844</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred in connection with issuing new shares is characterised as capital expenditure because its object was to strengthen the company&#039;s capital structure; consequently such costs are not deductible as business revenue expenditure. The court distinguished fees paid merely to obtain permission to increase authorised capital (which may be noncapital if not resulting in actual capital increase) from brokerage and commission paid on an actual share issue, which are capital in nature and not allowable. The matter was remanded for verification under appellate remand procedure on one issue, and a certification was refused on the principal question favouring the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>