https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22014 HC held that expenditure incurred by the assessee on replacement of damaged moulds, runners and end rings used in its manufacturing process constitutes revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court reasoned that although moulds, viewed independently, could qualify as capital assets, their replacement in the ordinary course of business amounted to maintenance or repair of existing machinery, necessary to keep the production process operational. Initial acquisition of machinery is capital in nature, but subsequent replacement of worn-out parts, even if conferring some enduring benefit, falls on the revenue side. The assessee was therefore entitled to claim such expenditure as a deductible business outlay. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22014 HC held that expenditure incurred by the assessee on replacement of damaged moulds, runners and end rings used in its manufacturing process constitutes revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court reasoned that although moulds, viewed independently, could qualify as capital assets, their replacement in the ordinary course of business amounted to maintenance or repair of existing machinery, necessary to keep the production process operational. Initial acquisition of machinery is capital in nature, but subsequent replacement of worn-out parts, even if conferring some enduring benefit, falls on the revenue side. The assessee was therefore entitled to claim such expenditure as a deductible business outlay. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22014