1970 (4) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th him), for the appellant. M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (V. D. Narayan and D. Goburdhun, Advocates, with him), for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE J.-This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Patna in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (in short " the Act "). At the instance of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the accounting year. The assessee claimed that the said expenditure was a revenue expenditure coming within section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner overruled the contention of the assessee. They considered that expenditure as capital expenditure and hence not deductible as a permissible allowance. But, on a further appeal, the Appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther depillaring has been done or not, is a finding of fact. That finding was binding on the High Court. It is equally binding on us. In view of that finding, the High Court was justified in holding that the expenditure in dispute is a revenue expenditure. This court had in various decisions laid down the principles to be applied in distinguishing revenue expenditure from capital expenditure. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X