https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35488 The court upheld the decision that the expenditure for developing import substitute components was of revenue nature, not capital, as it provided only a revenue advantage without acquiring any capital asset. The court found that the benefit derived from the expenditure did not change its character, emphasizing that salaries, wages, and traveling expenses incurred were also revenue in nature. The court dismissed the appeal, aligning with the lower authorities' findings and supported by legal precedents emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35488 The court upheld the decision that the expenditure for developing import substitute components was of revenue nature, not capital, as it provided only a revenue advantage without acquiring any capital asset. The court found that the benefit derived from the expenditure did not change its character, emphasizing that salaries, wages, and traveling expenses incurred were also revenue in nature. The court dismissed the appeal, aligning with the lower authorities' findings and supported by legal precedents emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35488