https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784215 Discounts reflected as the difference between purchase cost and sale price on goods sold through the assessee's portal were held not to constitute capital expenditure for acquisition/creation of marketing intangibles such as brand value or goodwill; the discounting was treated as a revenue outgo and the Revenue's grounds treating it as an intangible asset were dismissed. ESOP cross-charge paid to the holding company was held to be a non-contingent business expenditure allowable as a revenue deduction under s. 37(1). Reimbursement of such ESOP cross-charge was held not to attract withholding under s. 195; consequently, disallowance under s. 40(a)(i) was held inapplicable. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784215 Discounts reflected as the difference between purchase cost and sale price on goods sold through the assessee's portal were held not to constitute capital expenditure for acquisition/creation of marketing intangibles such as brand value or goodwill; the discounting was treated as a revenue outgo and the Revenue's grounds treating it as an intangible asset were dismissed. ESOP cross-charge paid to the holding company was held to be a non-contingent business expenditure allowable as a revenue deduction under s. 37(1). Reimbursement of such ESOP cross-charge was held not to attract withholding under s. 195; consequently, disallowance under s. 40(a)(i) was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784215