https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169786 Expenditure on replacing worn-out subsidiary parts of machinery was treated as "current repairs" where the work restored the asset's working condition in the ordinary course of use and did not amount to reconstruction of the whole machinery or a substantial part of it. "Repair" was construed to include renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, while "current" referred to repairs arising during the machinery's working life; the size of the expenditure was not decisive by itself. On that test, replacement of the fire box, head-stock and sublimer was allowable as a revenue deduction because it did not create a new asset or enhance the machinery beyond restoration. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2015 10:19:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169786 Expenditure on replacing worn-out subsidiary parts of machinery was treated as "current repairs" where the work restored the asset's working condition in the ordinary course of use and did not amount to reconstruction of the whole machinery or a substantial part of it. "Repair" was construed to include renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, while "current" referred to repairs arising during the machinery's working life; the size of the expenditure was not decisive by itself. On that test, replacement of the fire box, head-stock and sublimer was allowable as a revenue deduction because it did not create a new asset or enhance the machinery beyond restoration. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169786