https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415886 The court determined that the expenditure incurred for raising the floor height of a godown was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The appellant's actions were aimed at maintaining business continuity and increasing profit, rather than creating a new asset. The court found the expenditure integral to profit-making and not for acquiring a permanent asset, aligning it with revenue expenditure principles. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the expenditure was for conducting business and enhancing profit, thus not classified as capital expenditure. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415886 The court determined that the expenditure incurred for raising the floor height of a godown was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The appellant's actions were aimed at maintaining business continuity and increasing profit, rather than creating a new asset. The court found the expenditure integral to profit-making and not for acquiring a permanent asset, aligning it with revenue expenditure principles. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the expenditure was for conducting business and enhancing profit, thus not classified as capital expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415886