https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119859 Depreciation was allowed on a building financed by the firm and used exclusively for its business, despite title standing in the names of two partners, because the firm bore the cost and the substance of business ownership and user prevailed over formal title. Expenditure on constructing a strong room in rented premises was treated as revenue expenditure, as it was incurred to facilitate business operations and did not create a capital asset owned by the assessee. The appeal succeeded on both substantive issues, while the remaining ground was not pressed. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:15:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119859 Depreciation was allowed on a building financed by the firm and used exclusively for its business, despite title standing in the names of two partners, because the firm bore the cost and the substance of business ownership and user prevailed over formal title. Expenditure on constructing a strong room in rented premises was treated as revenue expenditure, as it was incurred to facilitate business operations and did not create a capital asset owned by the assessee. The appeal succeeded on both substantive issues, while the remaining ground was not pressed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119859