1989 (9) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee reads thus "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,448 incurred by the assessee for the replacement of staircase was capital expenditure, not entitled to deduction as revenue expenditure ?" The question relates to the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e new staircase with reinforced concrete stairs of wider dimensions brought into existence an enduring asset and that, therefore, the expenditure incurred thereon was capital expenditure. Mr. Kolah, learned counsel for the assessee, had drawn our attention to the judgment of this court in Addl. CIT v. India United Mills Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 399. The expenditure incurred there was for substituting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een acquired nor could the assessee be said to have acquired any advantage of an enduring nature. The principle of the decision in the case of India United Mills Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 399 (Bom) applies to the case before us. Following that decision, we must hold that the Tribunal was in error in the view that it took. We answer the question, accordingly, thus: The expenditure of Rs. 22,448 incur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X