Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... vs Rama Sugar Mills Ltd., Bobbili on 27 May, 1951
6. If capital expenditure was excluded from the scope of clauses (i) to (xiv) of section 10(2), there was no need to refer to capital expenditure in clause (xv). The question whether capital expenditure can fall within the scope of section 10(2)(v) was considered by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. At page 196, Satyanarayana Rao J. observed thus :
Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 26 August, 1966
"Bearing these principles in mind, it would be convenient now to consider the decisions cited at the bar to elucidate the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. Though in the question formulated and in the arguments before the Income-tax Officer and the other authorities which dealt with this question, the point was considered only from the point of view of clause (xv) to sub-section (2) of section 10, in the arguments before us, reference was made to sub-clause (v) of that sub-section relating to repairs and also to clause (xv). If the substitution of the new boiler for the old by the assessee can aptly be described as a "repair" of the machinery, the claim for allowance must be upheld under clause (v) of section 10(2) and no further question whether it is in the nature of capital expenditure or expenditure which is to come out of revenue arises for consideration. It has been held by this court very early in Ratan Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax that these clauses are disjunctive and even if an assessee fails to establish his claim under clause (v), he would still be entitled to rely upon clause (xv) in support of the deductions claimed by the assessee-company."
New Shorrock Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 March, 1950
In finding out whether a given case falls within the scope of clause (v) of section 10(2), the true test as laid down by the Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax is whether, as a result of the expenditure which is claimed as expenditure for repairs, what is really being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset or whether the object of such expenditure was to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new or fresh advantage. If it is the former, then it is a "repair". If it is the latter, it should be considered as a replacement of renewal. This is the crux of the matter. But this aspect was completely lost sight of by the Tribunal and it is not possible for us to pronounce on the same without a further statement of facts in this regard.
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1