9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.05.2005 in I.T.A.No.506/Mds/1997 for the assessment year 1994-95 and 1996-97. For appellant: Mr.J.Naresh Kumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) By framing the following questions of law, a) "Whether the replacement of machinery parts will amount to reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income Tax appeal held that the replacement of the machinery is capital in nature. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the expenditure on replacement of machinery is revenue in nature following the judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Janakiraman Mills Limited reported in 275 ITR 403 dismissed the appeal. The correctness of the same is canvassed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reconsider the issue as per the direction given as to the enhancement of production capacity and recorded a finding to that effect, having regard to the addition made or replacement made to the machineries already available. 5. Having regard to the law now prevailing as declared by the Supreme Court in the above said cases, even in these cases, as there is no specific finding about the enduri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
