https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278440 Replacement expenditure on machinery was held to be revenue in nature where the replaced equipment formed part of a composite industrial unit and no new independent asset was acquired. The court applied the real nature of the asset and the commercial character of the replacement as the decisive test, and treated the assessee's accounting treatment in the books as irrelevant. Since the machinery was only an integral part of the ongoing manufacturing apparatus, the outlay was allowable as revenue expenditure and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Feb 2019 10:32:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278440 Replacement expenditure on machinery was held to be revenue in nature where the replaced equipment formed part of a composite industrial unit and no new independent asset was acquired. The court applied the real nature of the asset and the commercial character of the replacement as the decisive test, and treated the assessee's accounting treatment in the books as irrelevant. Since the machinery was only an integral part of the ongoing manufacturing apparatus, the outlay was allowable as revenue expenditure and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278440