https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38140 Payment made to settle a co-producer's claims and remove uncertainty over rights in a film was held to be revenue expenditure. The court treated the payment as incurred after title had already vested and after the arbitral award had clarified the position, so it was not for acquiring a capital asset or perfecting title. As the settlement was entered into to resolve disputes, avoid litigation, and enable the business to be carried on more effectively, the amount was allowable as a revenue deduction. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:36:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38140 Payment made to settle a co-producer's claims and remove uncertainty over rights in a film was held to be revenue expenditure. The court treated the payment as incurred after title had already vested and after the arbitral award had clarified the position, so it was not for acquiring a capital asset or perfecting title. As the settlement was entered into to resolve disputes, avoid litigation, and enable the business to be carried on more effectively, the amount was allowable as a revenue deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38140