TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal of the Revenue, its grievance is that the ld. CIT held the cost of replacement of centrifugal fans, weft straightner, autoconers, dampers, blowers, etc. as Revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 2. According to the Revenue, through its decision in CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Limited (293 ITR 201) the Hon ble Apex Court had settled the law that replacement of machinery w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Now before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court in a subsequent decision [CIT v. Hindustan Textiles dt. 3.11.2009) had set aside a similar issue and remitted it back to the jurisdictional High Court for consideration afresh based on the test laid down by it in the case of CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or CIT(A) when they were dealing with the matter. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the assessee requires to be looked into afresh, by the Assessing Officer in view of the law laid down by Hon ble Apex Court in the various decisions cited above. No doubt, items like Cummins Genset Engine cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
