https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15743 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, a building materials company, allowing the expenditure of Rs. 33,800 on extra amenities in lease-hold premises as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court held that since no enduring capital asset was created, the expenditure qualified as revenue. Consequently, the claim for depreciation under section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable due to the nature of the expenditure, and no costs were awarded in the case. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:52:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15743 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, a building materials company, allowing the expenditure of Rs. 33,800 on extra amenities in lease-hold premises as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court held that since no enduring capital asset was created, the expenditure qualified as revenue. Consequently, the claim for depreciation under section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable due to the nature of the expenditure, and no costs were awarded in the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15743