2009 (4) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pushya Sitaraman for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J.- The appeals are filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, dated October 31, 2008, made in I. T. A. Nos. 256 and 257/Mds/2000, respectively. The relevant assessment years are 2003-04 and 2004-05. The substantial questions of law formulated for en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anced the production is the question to be resolved. 3. Mr. V. S. Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has given us a chart for the assessment year 2003-04 wherein he has stated the income statement, the number of spindles added/sold, installed capacity and the nature of machinery and contended that even though there is slight rise in respect of the number of spindles, ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Surgical Cotton Mills [2007] 294 ITR 328. In the said judgment, the decision of this court in CIT v. Janakiram Mills reported in [2005] 275 ITR 403 was considered by the Supreme Court with reference to the contention of the assessee that replacement of assets without increasing the production capacity would amount to revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court remanded the matter by observing that the....