https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39579 A later Supreme Court declaration that expenditure on debentures was not capital expenditure could justify condonation of delay in filing revision applications, because the earlier contrary view of several High Courts had left the law unsettled. The retrospective operation of that declaration under Article 141 meant the petitioner had sufficient cause for not invoking revision earlier under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner's refusal to condone the delay was therefore erroneous, and the limitation bar could not be sustained; the revisions had to be considered on merits. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:03:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39579 A later Supreme Court declaration that expenditure on debentures was not capital expenditure could justify condonation of delay in filing revision applications, because the earlier contrary view of several High Courts had left the law unsettled. The retrospective operation of that declaration under Article 141 meant the petitioner had sufficient cause for not invoking revision earlier under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner's refusal to condone the delay was therefore erroneous, and the limitation bar could not be sustained; the revisions had to be considered on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39579