https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358015 The ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, considering the expenditure on leased premises as revenue expenditure, not resulting in an enduring asset. Referring to judicial precedents and distinguishing between repairs and current repairs, the ITAT held that the expenditure was for making the premises suitable for business, qualifying as revenue expenditure. The judgment emphasized that the appellant, as a tenant, incurred the expenditure for repairs, not creating a new capital asset, entitling the appellant to claim it as revenue expenditure. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358015 The ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, considering the expenditure on leased premises as revenue expenditure, not resulting in an enduring asset. Referring to judicial precedents and distinguishing between repairs and current repairs, the ITAT held that the expenditure was for making the premises suitable for business, qualifying as revenue expenditure. The judgment emphasized that the appellant, as a tenant, incurred the expenditure for repairs, not creating a new capital asset, entitling the appellant to claim it as revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358015