https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174781 The High Court remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court decisions, which subsequently reaffirmed the disallowance of expenditure on the replacement of machinery as capital expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal. Regarding the levy of interest, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the levy of interest under section 220(2) in accordance with the law. The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under section 234B, citing its mandatory nature. The appeal outcome favored the revenue authority on most issues, with a partial success for the assessee on the interest levy under section 220(2). en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174781 The High Court remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court decisions, which subsequently reaffirmed the disallowance of expenditure on the replacement of machinery as capital expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal. Regarding the levy of interest, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the levy of interest under section 220(2) in accordance with the law. The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under section 234B, citing its mandatory nature. The appeal outcome favored the revenue authority on most issues, with a partial success for the assessee on the interest levy under section 220(2). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174781