Replacement expenditure on machinery could not be treated as...

Replacement expenditure on machinery could not be treated as current repairs merely because the Tribunal relied on a precedent later reversed by the Supreme Court. In a textile mill, each machine is an independent asset, so replacement does not automatically amount to preservation or maintenance of a single composite machine. The assessee had to satisfy the Supreme Court's test for current repairs, including the principles in Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, but the Tribunal had not undertaken that examination. The issue whether the expenditure was revenue or capital was therefore remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to place the necessary material.

---