https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180993 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the expenditure on replacing the conversion kit for furnace assembly was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure. The replacement did not involve the entire machinery, did not provide an enduring advantage, and was necessary for maintenance purposes only. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court decisions in support and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the original decision. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180993 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the expenditure on replacing the conversion kit for furnace assembly was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure. The replacement did not involve the entire machinery, did not provide an enduring advantage, and was necessary for maintenance purposes only. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court decisions in support and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the original decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180993