9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal representative strongly urged that by changing the projector head which is the main part of the projector, the assessee has derived an enduring benefit and so the expenditure incurred is capital expenditure. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in allowing it as revenue expenditure. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly urged that only one part of the projector is changed and so it amounts to repairs and that the expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. He supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We have considered the rival submissions. The projector of the cinema theatre consists of several parts such as stand, arc lamps, sound head, motors, projector head, magazines, lenses, rectifiers, amplifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. In C.R. Corea Bros. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 188 (Mad.), the assessee incurred heavy expenditure in repairing the cargo boat. The repairs involved caulking, replacement of underwater planking and copper sheathing. On those facts it was held by the Madras High Court that the expenditure was allowable as current repairs under section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the 1922 Act'). 5. In CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC) the assessee spent Rs. 93,215 for introduction of 'Casablanca conversion system' in its spinning plant. This involved replacement of certain roller stands and fluted rollers fitted with rubber aprons to the spinning machinery, removal of ring frames from certain existing parts, intr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 15,851 by way of replacement or an old diesel engine of its motor van by a new diesel engine. The question arose whether the amount is allowable as an admissible deduction. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the replacement of old diesel engine by a new one did not bring in any new asset into existence and, hence, the expenditure fell within the meaning of 'current repairs' and, therefore, was admissible as deduction under section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was observed that if the amount is spent for preserving and maintaining the present asset in existence it cannot be said that the expenditure so incurred is capital in nature. In Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
