https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262682 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No. 1354 and fully allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No. 2399. The disallowance of the cost of two comber machines and one auto coner claimed as revenue expenditure was withdrawn by the appellant during the hearing. The remaining issue focused on whether the cost of 339 units of yarn clearers constituted revenue or capital expenditure. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's initial acceptance of the yarn clearers' cost as revenue expenditure and the Commissioner's error in treating them as capital expenditure. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262682 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No. 1354 and fully allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No. 2399. The disallowance of the cost of two comber machines and one auto coner claimed as revenue expenditure was withdrawn by the appellant during the hearing. The remaining issue focused on whether the cost of 339 units of yarn clearers constituted revenue or capital expenditure. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's initial acceptance of the yarn clearers' cost as revenue expenditure and the Commissioner's error in treating them as capital expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262682