https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206747 The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the expenditure on purchasing moulds was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It emphasized that the nature of the expenditure should be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case, rather than solely relying on the classification in the depreciation schedule. The court reiterated that replacing parts in machinery during operation generally constitutes revenue expenditure, especially when it does not enhance the machine's capacity but serves as replacements for damaged parts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals as no legal issue necessitated further consideration based on the tribunal's findings. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206747 The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the expenditure on purchasing moulds was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It emphasized that the nature of the expenditure should be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case, rather than solely relying on the classification in the depreciation schedule. The court reiterated that replacing parts in machinery during operation generally constitutes revenue expenditure, especially when it does not enhance the machine's capacity but serves as replacements for damaged parts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals as no legal issue necessitated further consideration based on the tribunal's findings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206747