9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ambhu Chopra for the appellant. Sri S.D. Singh appears for the respondent-revenue. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi dated 30.12.2009, relevant for the Assessment Year 1990-91, by which the Tribunal confirmed the appellate order. 3. This appeal was admitted on the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service line for meeting the assessee's requirement for extended load which could not be supplied over the existing line. However, the ownership of the line was to vest in the undertaking. It is not disputed that the aforesaid expenditure was incurred by the assessee in connection with its business and that it was not an expenditure of personal nature. It would be inadmissible as a deduction only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be said that by changing the line the assessee procured some enduring asset. In our opinion, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), for determining when a particular expenditure partakes the nature of revenue expenditure, fully applied to the facts of the present case. In that case it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n item was a revenue expenditure. This means that in a case where the productive unit set up by the assessee remains the same, but a part of it which has become unsuitable for its use is replaced by something which makes it possible for the existing set up to function efficiently, the coat incurred on such replacement would be revenue expenditure In the case before us, we find that the service-li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
