https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38582 The court held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing depreciation at 1/11th of the expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure. The expenditure incurred was deemed to be of revenue nature as it was necessary to maintain the business, specifically under the lease covenant. The court distinguished the expenditure as revenue, not capital, and allowed the deduction for the year in question without any spreadover. No costs were awarded in the case. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:35:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38582 The court held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing depreciation at 1/11th of the expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure. The expenditure incurred was deemed to be of revenue nature as it was necessary to maintain the business, specifically under the lease covenant. The court distinguished the expenditure as revenue, not capital, and allowed the deduction for the year in question without any spreadover. No costs were awarded in the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38582