<?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>2015 (1) TMI 476 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255277</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that expenditure on repairs and maintenance was revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Court distinguished between current repairs and capital expenditure, emphasizing that the expenses did not create a new asset but aimed to maintain the existing asset. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 476 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255277</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that expenditure on repairs and maintenance was revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Court distinguished between current repairs and capital expenditure, emphasizing that the expenses did not create a new asset but aimed to maintain the existing asset. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>