<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (5) TMI 243 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281511</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred to convert oil-firing equipment into coal-firing equipment was treated as revenue expenditure because it only improved the working of the existing machine. No new plant or machinery came into existence, and the change did not create an enduring capital asset. The cost was therefore allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:23:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 243 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281511</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred to convert oil-firing equipment into coal-firing equipment was treated as revenue expenditure because it only improved the working of the existing machine. No new plant or machinery came into existence, and the change did not create an enduring capital asset. The cost was therefore allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>