https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469049 Expenditure on dismantling, transportation, crane charges, supervision and reinstallation incurred while shifting a factory from rented to owned premises was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1). The decisive test was whether the outlay was in the capital field, not merely the duration of the benefit; since no new asset was created, the capital base remained unchanged, and the move only enabled continuation of the existing business, the claim was allowable. The note also treats the issue as one of timing of deduction rather than creation of a new profit-making apparatus, supporting deduction in the year claimed. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:11:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469049 Expenditure on dismantling, transportation, crane charges, supervision and reinstallation incurred while shifting a factory from rented to owned premises was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1). The decisive test was whether the outlay was in the capital field, not merely the duration of the benefit; since no new asset was created, the capital base remained unchanged, and the move only enabled continuation of the existing business, the claim was allowable. The note also treats the issue as one of timing of deduction rather than creation of a new profit-making apparatus, supporting deduction in the year claimed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469049