https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286320 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the disallowance of expenditure on machinery replacement in a spinning mill. It held that the replacement did not increase production capacity, emphasizing that maintenance without demonstrated capacity increase should be considered as current repair under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the replacement created a new asset with enduring benefits, concluding that the expenditure should not be capitalized. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286320 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the disallowance of expenditure on machinery replacement in a spinning mill. It held that the replacement did not increase production capacity, emphasizing that maintenance without demonstrated capacity increase should be considered as current repair under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the replacement created a new asset with enduring benefits, concluding that the expenditure should not be capitalized. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286320