https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362632 The ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in the case, ruling in favor of the taxpayer on all grounds. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the repair and maintenance expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital. Additionally, the deletion of the addition for work in progress was upheld, as the manufacturing process did not involve work in progress. Finally, the Tribunal supported the deletion of the addition for foreign travel expenses, considering them justified for business purposes. The AO's appeal was dismissed based on the evidence and legal reasoning presented. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:17:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362632 The ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in the case, ruling in favor of the taxpayer on all grounds. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the repair and maintenance expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital. Additionally, the deletion of the addition for work in progress was upheld, as the manufacturing process did not involve work in progress. Finally, the Tribunal supported the deletion of the addition for foreign travel expenses, considering them justified for business purposes. The AO's appeal was dismissed based on the evidence and legal reasoning presented. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362632