https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25388 Expenditure incurred to protect or preserve a capital asset is capital in character and is not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; a payment made in full and final settlement of a suit to safeguard rights in land was therefore not allowable. The rubber replantation subsidy was treated as assessable income, following the earlier decision referred to in the text. The material legal point is that protective litigation-related spending does not become revenue expenditure merely because it avoids a suit, and the subsidy remained taxable income. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:43:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25388 Expenditure incurred to protect or preserve a capital asset is capital in character and is not deductible as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; a payment made in full and final settlement of a suit to safeguard rights in land was therefore not allowable. The rubber replantation subsidy was treated as assessable income, following the earlier decision referred to in the text. The material legal point is that protective litigation-related spending does not become revenue expenditure merely because it avoids a suit, and the subsidy remained taxable income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25388