TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31(i) cannot be allowed. As in the case of Sarvana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that if the current repairs relate to independent machines itself instead of repair of a part of that machine, deduction cannot be granted under Section 31(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also in a textile mill there are several departments/divisions. In each department/divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2002 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No.141 of 1989. The following question of law has been raised in the appeal: Whether the High Court was right in law in holding that the Assessee was entitled to deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred on machineries replaced for the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Appeals vide order dated 29th September, 1983 allowed ₹ 26,84,235/- as admissible revenue expenditure and at the same time directed the assessing officer to withdraw the depreciation and development rebate granted on these capitalized items, as they have been treated as revenue expenditure. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (1992) 198 ITR 716 and in the case of CIT vs. Satyadev Chemical Ltd.(1997) 226 ITR 95 has been impliedly overruled by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. Sarvana Spining Mills(P) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 298. She submitted that each items for which deduction under the head current repairs was sought is a machine by itself and therefore deduction under Section 31(i) cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat High Court as also the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals on this issue cannot be sustained and are thereby set aside. It is held that the respondent is not entitled for any deduction under the head current repairs as claimed and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
