9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (4) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the litigation expenses amounting to ₹ 29,997 incurred by the appellant-company for the protection of its cash resources was an expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) ?" The statement of the case and the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal show that the assessee was negotiating with Messrs. Potts Engineers Ltd., Leeds, in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expenditure deductible from the income under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Tribunal and, hence, the question mentioned above has been refereed to us. In this case, it is clearly stated in the statement of the case that the transaction between the United Kingdom company and the assessee relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e expenditure was not incurred after the acquisition of those moulds as capital assets and was not for the protection of capital assets which might have already been acquired by the assessee-company. The expenditure having been incurred in the course of acquisition of capital assets it must be held to be expenditure of a capital nature. The cases that have been brought to our notice by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
