<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1979 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36995</link>
    <description>The court held that the expenditure of Rs. 15,851 incurred by the assessee for replacing the motor engine is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the replacement of the diesel engine constituted &quot;current repairs,&quot; making the expenditure revenue in nature. The decision in R.B. Shreeram &amp;amp; Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 428 was deemed incorrect, while the view in Hanuman Motor Service v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 88 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:27:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36995</link>
      <description>The court held that the expenditure of Rs. 15,851 incurred by the assessee for replacing the motor engine is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the replacement of the diesel engine constituted &quot;current repairs,&quot; making the expenditure revenue in nature. The decision in R.B. Shreeram &amp;amp; Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 428 was deemed incorrect, while the view in Hanuman Motor Service v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 88 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>