<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Income Tax - Revenue Expenditure Vs. Capital Expenditure – Scope of the term Current Repair u/s 31(i)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=143</link>
    <description>The issue is whether &quot;modernization and replacement expenses&quot; qualify as current repairs deductible under section 31(i). The Court found that the proper test is whether the expenditure is genuinely repair in the ordinary sense rather than an alteration, improvement or capital replacement, and that the lower authorities failed to apply that test to the claimed modernization and replacement outlays.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:23:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=302930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Income Tax - Revenue Expenditure Vs. Capital Expenditure – Scope of the term Current Repair u/s 31(i)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=143</link>
      <description>The issue is whether &quot;modernization and replacement expenses&quot; qualify as current repairs deductible under section 31(i). The Court found that the proper test is whether the expenditure is genuinely repair in the ordinary sense rather than an alteration, improvement or capital replacement, and that the lower authorities failed to apply that test to the claimed modernization and replacement outlays.</description>
      <category>News</category>
      <law>-</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:23:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>