2003 (3) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Textile Industry - The questions referred to us for our consideration are By the Revenue - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that the cost of installation of overhead cleaner, speed frames and humidification plant is capital expenditure (sic)? - By the assessee Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure incurred in replacing the blow room machinery is not deductible as a revenue expenditure? - The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

High Court Madras judgment for assessment year 1986-87. Revenue questions cost of installation of machineries. Overhead cleaner considered revenue expenditure for workmen health. Speed frames and humidification plant replacement costs allowed as revenue expenditure. Blow room machinery expenditure considered capital expenditure. Tribunal's findings upheld.