https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469597 Identical issues already concluded in the assessee's own earlier years were followed on unchanged facts, and the coordinate bench rulings were treated as binding for the year under review. On that basis, the franchise fee paid for IPL participation was regarded as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The ad hoc 10% disallowance of hospitality expenses was also deleted because the expenditure was accepted as business-related and no distinguishing material justified an arbitrary reduction. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was maintained. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:00:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469597 Identical issues already concluded in the assessee's own earlier years were followed on unchanged facts, and the coordinate bench rulings were treated as binding for the year under review. On that basis, the franchise fee paid for IPL participation was regarded as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The ad hoc 10% disallowance of hospitality expenses was also deleted because the expenditure was accepted as business-related and no distinguishing material justified an arbitrary reduction. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was maintained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469597