<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 826 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785070</link>
    <description>Characterisation of expenditure focuses on whether advertising outlays are capital or revenue; the commentary notes that treating such advertising as deferred revenue expenditure is permissible and that there is no estoppel against the statute to deny the claimed treatment, relying on settled precedents which hold advertising expenses are not capital in nature, with the practical consequence that the expenditure may be claimed as revenue/deductible rather than capitalised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:03:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 826 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785070</link>
      <description>Characterisation of expenditure focuses on whether advertising outlays are capital or revenue; the commentary notes that treating such advertising as deferred revenue expenditure is permissible and that there is no estoppel against the statute to deny the claimed treatment, relying on settled precedents which hold advertising expenses are not capital in nature, with the practical consequence that the expenditure may be claimed as revenue/deductible rather than capitalised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>