https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303099 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing fresh consideration and adherence to precedents. The non-compete fee was considered revenue expenditure or alternatively, depreciable as an intangible asset. The interest premia for loan prepayment was allowed as revenue expenditure to reduce interest burden. The claim for 100% depreciation on energy-saving devices was set aside for lack of evidence. R&D expenditure was not entirely allowed as revenue expenditure but to be valued as stock in trade. Provision for royalty payment was upheld despite being sub-judice. The Tribunal stressed proper substantiation of claims and consistency with past decisions. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2022 16:05:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303099 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing fresh consideration and adherence to precedents. The non-compete fee was considered revenue expenditure or alternatively, depreciable as an intangible asset. The interest premia for loan prepayment was allowed as revenue expenditure to reduce interest burden. The claim for 100% depreciation on energy-saving devices was set aside for lack of evidence. R&D expenditure was not entirely allowed as revenue expenditure but to be valued as stock in trade. Provision for royalty payment was upheld despite being sub-judice. The Tribunal stressed proper substantiation of claims and consistency with past decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303099