https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11153 The High Court held that expenses incurred in restoring the swimming pool and boundary wall, treated as assets of enduring nature, should be classified as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The court emphasized that expenses on enduring assets are considered capital expenditure, irrespective of construction or reconstruction. The decision favored the Revenue against the assessee, leading to the disposal of the reference accordingly. en-us Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11153 The High Court held that expenses incurred in restoring the swimming pool and boundary wall, treated as assets of enduring nature, should be classified as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure. The court emphasized that expenses on enduring assets are considered capital expenditure, irrespective of construction or reconstruction. The decision favored the Revenue against the assessee, leading to the disposal of the reference accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11153