https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259777 The High Court allowed the appellant's claim of depreciation for inactive machinery during a work suspension period, emphasizing the machinery's readiness for use despite the suspension. However, the court ruled against the appellant regarding the treatment of expenditure on filling up a pond as capital expenditure, considering it as an enduring improvement that enhanced the land's value. The court partially allowed the appeal, favoring the appellant on the depreciation claim but upholding the treatment of the expenditure as capital. en-us Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2015 22:51:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259777 The High Court allowed the appellant's claim of depreciation for inactive machinery during a work suspension period, emphasizing the machinery's readiness for use despite the suspension. However, the court ruled against the appellant regarding the treatment of expenditure on filling up a pond as capital expenditure, considering it as an enduring improvement that enhanced the land's value. The court partially allowed the appeal, favoring the appellant on the depreciation claim but upholding the treatment of the expenditure as capital. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259777