9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 58,164 is an allowable business deduction. The question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of providing services and facilities, such as electricity, water, ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure was accepted. Therefore, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. The Revenue then moved the Tribunal for referring the following question to this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... current repairs. He also drew our attention to various principles which have been laid down by courts and which are referred to in CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1969] 72 ITR 137 (Mad) and Hylam Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 310 (AP). As pointed out in the case of Hylam [1973] 87 ITR 310 (AP), it is not the law that, if an enduring advantage is obtained, the expenditure for securing it must always be trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the replacement was in the nature of current repairs. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate the true nature of the expenditure or the principles applicable for determining whether such expenditure can be regarded as a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. Though the overhead electric wires which originally formed part of the capital asset of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
