https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70540 Expenditure on false ceiling, plastering, painting, show-cases and other fit-outs in leased business premises was not wholly revenue in nature. Because the premises were taken on lease, ownership in the improvements did not pass to the assessee on vacation, but the character of the items and the absence of detailed expense particulars meant the entire outlay could not be treated as revenue expenditure. The expenditure was therefore required to be apportioned between revenue and capital, with the capital portion eligible only for depreciation as furniture and fittings. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70540 Expenditure on false ceiling, plastering, painting, show-cases and other fit-outs in leased business premises was not wholly revenue in nature. Because the premises were taken on lease, ownership in the improvements did not pass to the assessee on vacation, but the character of the items and the absence of detailed expense particulars meant the entire outlay could not be treated as revenue expenditure. The expenditure was therefore required to be apportioned between revenue and capital, with the capital portion eligible only for depreciation as furniture and fittings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70540