<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1607 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468792</link>
    <description>Borrowing-related processing charges paid for business loans were treated as revenue expenditure, being analogous to interest and not creating an enduring asset, so the disallowance was deleted. Expenses for basic telephony expansion were regarded as part of an integrated existing business, and the revised return claim was capable of consideration, though the enhanced claim required verification. Software expenditure could not be classified mechanically as capital; its treatment depends on functional use and whether it creates an enduring asset, so the matter was remanded. Interest on delayed licence fee was compensatory, and the licence fee itself was allowable as business expenditure, so both disallowances failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 12:44:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1607 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468792</link>
      <description>Borrowing-related processing charges paid for business loans were treated as revenue expenditure, being analogous to interest and not creating an enduring asset, so the disallowance was deleted. Expenses for basic telephony expansion were regarded as part of an integrated existing business, and the revised return claim was capable of consideration, though the enhanced claim required verification. Software expenditure could not be classified mechanically as capital; its treatment depends on functional use and whether it creates an enduring asset, so the matter was remanded. Interest on delayed licence fee was compensatory, and the licence fee itself was allowable as business expenditure, so both disallowances failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>