<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1960 (9) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191817</link>
    <description>Expenditure on fitting new lorry bodies in place of old, worn-out bodies was treated as current repairs because it merely restored the vehicles to roadworthy and usable condition. The distinction between repair and replacement was applied as one of degree, and the work did not bring into existence a new asset, increase the number of vehicles, or create an enduring addition. The cost was therefore deductible as current repairs and not capital expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191817</link>
      <description>Expenditure on fitting new lorry bodies in place of old, worn-out bodies was treated as current repairs because it merely restored the vehicles to roadworthy and usable condition. The distinction between repair and replacement was applied as one of degree, and the work did not bring into existence a new asset, increase the number of vehicles, or create an enduring addition. The cost was therefore deductible as current repairs and not capital expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>