https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16359 Whether substantial replacement and modernization of a hotel building and its components constitutes capital expenditure or deductible revenue expenditure: the HC held that the outlay was incurred solely to repair and modernise the hotel and replace existing components of part of the building, furniture, and fittings to facilitate efficient business operations and improve ambience. Applying its earlier ruling in the assessee's own case, the HC found the expenditure did not bring into existence an enduring advantage in the capital field and therefore was not capital in nature; it was allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the Revenue's references were rejected. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16359 Whether substantial replacement and modernization of a hotel building and its components constitutes capital expenditure or deductible revenue expenditure: the HC held that the outlay was incurred solely to repair and modernise the hotel and replace existing components of part of the building, furniture, and fittings to facilitate efficient business operations and improve ambience. Applying its earlier ruling in the assessee's own case, the HC found the expenditure did not bring into existence an enduring advantage in the capital field and therefore was not capital in nature; it was allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the Revenue's references were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16359