https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34189 SC restored the AO's finding that expenditure on replacement of machinery was capital in nature and not deductible as revenue; depreciation only could be claimed. Lower authorities (CIT(A), ITAT, HC) had allowed it as revenue expenditure, but SC found the assessee treated the outlay as addition to assets in its accounts while claiming a revenue deduction for tax purposes, indicating the claim was made to reduce tax burden rather than reflecting true revenue treatment. The capital characterization by the AO was upheld and the order restored. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34189 SC restored the AO's finding that expenditure on replacement of machinery was capital in nature and not deductible as revenue; depreciation only could be claimed. Lower authorities (CIT(A), ITAT, HC) had allowed it as revenue expenditure, but SC found the assessee treated the outlay as addition to assets in its accounts while claiming a revenue deduction for tax purposes, indicating the claim was made to reduce tax burden rather than reflecting true revenue treatment. The capital characterization by the AO was upheld and the order restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34189