https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39030 The court concluded that the furniture used by the assessee was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, as the business involved hiring out furniture, not trading it. The claim of Rs. 25,127 as revenue expenditure was not allowable, as the method of calculating the loss based on treating furniture as stock-in-trade was incorrect. The court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the expenditure details applying the correct legal principles. The assessee was ordered to pay costs in one case and no costs in the other. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:04:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39030 The court concluded that the furniture used by the assessee was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, as the business involved hiring out furniture, not trading it. The claim of Rs. 25,127 as revenue expenditure was not allowable, as the method of calculating the loss based on treating furniture as stock-in-trade was incorrect. The court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the expenditure details applying the correct legal principles. The assessee was ordered to pay costs in one case and no costs in the other. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39030