https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62803 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, classifying Rs. 3.42 lakhs as capital expenditure entitled to depreciation under section 32(1A). The appellant's claim of deferred revenue expenditure was disallowed, and expenses for substantial renovations and extensions were treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal distinguished the case from others involving minor repairs, emphasizing the character of the work done. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s jurisdiction to reclassify expenses under the Explanation to section 251(2) of the Act, ultimately rejecting the appellant's appeal. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:20:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62803 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, classifying Rs. 3.42 lakhs as capital expenditure entitled to depreciation under section 32(1A). The appellant's claim of deferred revenue expenditure was disallowed, and expenses for substantial renovations and extensions were treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal distinguished the case from others involving minor repairs, emphasizing the character of the work done. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s jurisdiction to reclassify expenses under the Explanation to section 251(2) of the Act, ultimately rejecting the appellant's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62803