https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12761 The court held that the expenditure on installing a new cement mill did not qualify as "current repairs" under section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it constituted capital expenditure. The subsidy received was not to be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes, following precedent. Additionally, the guarantee commission paid was deemed a revenue expenditure based on relevant case law. en-us Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2009 18:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12761 The court held that the expenditure on installing a new cement mill did not qualify as "current repairs" under section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it constituted capital expenditure. The subsidy received was not to be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes, following precedent. Additionally, the guarantee commission paid was deemed a revenue expenditure based on relevant case law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12761