https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221045 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the expenses incurred for renovation work on leased premises, specifically false ceiling and furniture modification, were not considered capital expenditure but eligible for depreciation at 10 percent. The court emphasized that such expenses were deductible as maintenance expenditure on leased property, following relevant legal precedents. The court rejected the Revenue's argument based on an amendment to the Income-tax Act, concluding that the renovation expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure. As a result, the court allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee with no costs incurred. en-us Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221045 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the expenses incurred for renovation work on leased premises, specifically false ceiling and furniture modification, were not considered capital expenditure but eligible for depreciation at 10 percent. The court emphasized that such expenses were deductible as maintenance expenditure on leased property, following relevant legal precedents. The court rejected the Revenue's argument based on an amendment to the Income-tax Act, concluding that the renovation expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure. As a result, the court allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee with no costs incurred. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221045