https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28908 Expenditure on replacing ordinary lighting with fluorescent lighting was treated as revenue outlay because it was incurred for business purposes, created no new capital asset, and did not produce an enduring capital advantage; the claim was allowed. Replacement of worn-out doors with fire-proof doors and renewal of the bleaching house roof were regarded as current repairs aimed at maintaining the existing asset in working condition, not capital improvements, and were allowed. Legal fees incurred in income-tax appeals and recovery proceedings were also held to be allowable business expenditure. On all referred questions, the deductions were allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28908 Expenditure on replacing ordinary lighting with fluorescent lighting was treated as revenue outlay because it was incurred for business purposes, created no new capital asset, and did not produce an enduring capital advantage; the claim was allowed. Replacement of worn-out doors with fire-proof doors and renewal of the bleaching house roof were regarded as current repairs aimed at maintaining the existing asset in working condition, not capital improvements, and were allowed. Legal fees incurred in income-tax appeals and recovery proceedings were also held to be allowable business expenditure. On all referred questions, the deductions were allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28908