https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36716 The Tribunal held that a previous judgment did not operate as res judicata as it did not determine the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal decided for a fresh decision on the allowability of the expenditure in favor of the revenue. It concluded that the expenditure representing the liabilities of another company was capital expenditure, dismissing the assessee's argument. As a result, the decision was in favor of the revenue, and no costs were awarded. Judges B. S. Dhillon and S. P. Goyal concurred with the judgment's decisions and reasoning. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36716 The Tribunal held that a previous judgment did not operate as res judicata as it did not determine the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal decided for a fresh decision on the allowability of the expenditure in favor of the revenue. It concluded that the expenditure representing the liabilities of another company was capital expenditure, dismissing the assessee's argument. As a result, the decision was in favor of the revenue, and no costs were awarded. Judges B. S. Dhillon and S. P. Goyal concurred with the judgment's decisions and reasoning. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36716