TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the expenditure incurred on replacing corrugated iron sheets with asbestos cement sheets and carrying out allied repairs to godowns and sheds was capital expenditure or allowable revenue expenditure.
Analysis: The expenditure was incurred solely for earning rental income from the property and was to be judged under section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with the repair principle in section 10(2)(v) furnishing the relevant test. The governing enquiry was whether the outlay preserved and maintained an existing asset or brought into existence a new asset or a new and different advantage. The mere fact that the roofs were replaced and certain weather sheds were added did not, by itself, show capital expenditure. There was no reliable material to establish that the substituted asbestos cement sheets were costlier, more durable in a capital sense, or materially improved the corpus of the property. The Tribunal had not made precise findings showing which items constituted capital work, and the record did not support the view that the repairs resulted in reconstruction or a substantial improvement of the property.
Conclusion: The expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure and not to be treated as capital expenditure.
Final Conclusion: The answer to the referred question was against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, so the repairs were deductible in computing income from other sources.
Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure on repairs remains revenue expenditure where it is incurred to preserve and maintain an existing asset and does not bring into existence a new asset or a new and fresh advantage; replacement of worn-out parts does not become capital merely because it improves durability or involves substitution of materials.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
