https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65089 The case involved determining the nature of expenditure on repairs and maintenance, classifying it as capital or revenue, and entitlement to depreciation. The court found that most expenses were revenue expenditure, except for specific items related to building renovation. The majority held that a portion of the expenditure was capital, allowing depreciation on that amount. The third member emphasized that interior decoration expenses were temporary and not capital in nature, following the practical approach in determining the lasting benefit of expenditures. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, directing the assessing officer to adjust deductions accordingly. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:45:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65089 The case involved determining the nature of expenditure on repairs and maintenance, classifying it as capital or revenue, and entitlement to depreciation. The court found that most expenses were revenue expenditure, except for specific items related to building renovation. The majority held that a portion of the expenditure was capital, allowing depreciation on that amount. The third member emphasized that interior decoration expenses were temporary and not capital in nature, following the practical approach in determining the lasting benefit of expenditures. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, directing the assessing officer to adjust deductions accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65089