Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the expenditure incurred for purchase, erection and fitting of a new boiler to replace the worn-out boiler of the sugar factory was capital expenditure or was allowable as revenue expenditure, including as current repairs.
Analysis: The expenditure was examined against the scheme of Section 10(2)(v) and Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The majority treated the boiler as part of the machinery unit used for manufacture, and held that replacing a worn-out boiler with another boiler of the same pressure and function did not bring into existence a new asset or an enduring advantage of a capital nature. The replacement was viewed as restoration of a subsidiary part of the plant, falling within the concept of repairs and, in any event, not amounting to capital outlay. The dissent treated the boiler as part of the fixed capital and regarded the substitution as a substantial replacement giving an enduring advantage.
Conclusion: The expenditure was not capital expenditure and was allowable to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Replacement of a worn-out subsidiary part of machinery, which merely restores the plant to its original working condition without creating a new asset or enduring improvement, is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.