https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11926 Deduction under section 37(1) was disallowed because the claimed provision for breach of export obligation was not shown to relate to the relevant assessment year, and the finding remained unsupported by material on record. Expenditure on splicer and stripping roller attached to existing machines was treated as revenue expenditure because the items were installed to improve efficiency and output quality rather than create a new asset, and the fact that similar work had earlier been done manually did not make the cost capital in nature. The disallowance of the deduction was upheld, while the machinery-related expenditure was held allowable as revenue expenditure. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11926 Deduction under section 37(1) was disallowed because the claimed provision for breach of export obligation was not shown to relate to the relevant assessment year, and the finding remained unsupported by material on record. Expenditure on splicer and stripping roller attached to existing machines was treated as revenue expenditure because the items were installed to improve efficiency and output quality rather than create a new asset, and the fact that similar work had earlier been done manually did not make the cost capital in nature. The disallowance of the deduction was upheld, while the machinery-related expenditure was held allowable as revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11926