https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27925 The court ruled that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for constructing a new shop constituted a capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The construction resulted in the creation of a lasting asset, and the lack of evidence regarding the limited nature of the advantage gained from the construction led to the rejection of the assessee's claim for revenue treatment. The court differentiated this case from previous decisions and emphasized the need to apply established tests to determine the nature of expenditure. Ultimately, the court directed the assessee to bear the costs of the reference, affirming the capital nature of the expenditure. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:15:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27925 The court ruled that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for constructing a new shop constituted a capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The construction resulted in the creation of a lasting asset, and the lack of evidence regarding the limited nature of the advantage gained from the construction led to the rejection of the assessee's claim for revenue treatment. The court differentiated this case from previous decisions and emphasized the need to apply established tests to determine the nature of expenditure. Ultimately, the court directed the assessee to bear the costs of the reference, affirming the capital nature of the expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27925