https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29482 Expenditure incurred by a lessee on substantial repairs to leased business premises was treated as deductible revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. Reading the lease obligation to keep the building in good condition with the lessee's duty under section 108(m) of the Transfer of Property Act, the repairs to stop leakage and maintain usability for business were held to fall within repair expenditure. The absence of a separate written undertaking did not defeat the claim. Applying the section 37 test, the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business and did not bring into existence any capital asset or advantage in the capital field, so the enduring benefit test was not conclusive on these facts. en-us Mon, 25 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:22:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29482 Expenditure incurred by a lessee on substantial repairs to leased business premises was treated as deductible revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. Reading the lease obligation to keep the building in good condition with the lessee's duty under section 108(m) of the Transfer of Property Act, the repairs to stop leakage and maintain usability for business were held to fall within repair expenditure. The absence of a separate written undertaking did not defeat the claim. Applying the section 37 test, the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business and did not bring into existence any capital asset or advantage in the capital field, so the enduring benefit test was not conclusive on these facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29482