https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298069 The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the expenditure on replacement of machinery was capital in nature. The Tribunal considered the enduring benefit and increased production capacity resulting from the expenditure, aligning with previous judgments and the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The appeals were found to lack merit, and the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2021 15:54:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298069 The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the expenditure on replacement of machinery was capital in nature. The Tribunal considered the enduring benefit and increased production capacity resulting from the expenditure, aligning with previous judgments and the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The appeals were found to lack merit, and the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298069