https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67893 The Tribunal ruled against the appellant regarding the investment allowance on the Table Ghar account, determining that it did not qualify as plant and machinery for investment allowance purposes under section 32A. However, the Tribunal sided with the appellant in the case of revenue expenditure on Copper Rolls, allowing the claim of Rs. 24,508 as a valid revenue expenditure essential for the printing work. The judgment emphasized the distinction between capital and revenue expenditures based on their functionality and necessity in business operations. en-us Thu, 26 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:00:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67893 The Tribunal ruled against the appellant regarding the investment allowance on the Table Ghar account, determining that it did not qualify as plant and machinery for investment allowance purposes under section 32A. However, the Tribunal sided with the appellant in the case of revenue expenditure on Copper Rolls, allowing the claim of Rs. 24,508 as a valid revenue expenditure essential for the printing work. The judgment emphasized the distinction between capital and revenue expenditures based on their functionality and necessity in business operations. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67893