The facts of the case may be briefly numbericed The S.T.N. Respondent herein is a companypany running a textile mill.
The High Court, by its order of 11th March, 2002 set aside the finding of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal to the effect that the expenditure was incurred oncurrent repairs.
By its aforesaid judgment and order dated 11th March, 2002 read with revised order dated 14th March, 2002, impugned herein, out of the two questions referred to the High Court for its opinion, it answered the first question in favour of the revenue, and directed that the second question, together with the question as to whether the claim of deduction of the amount companyld be claimed under Section 37 of the Act, be companysidered by the Tribunal.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is number the expenditure of Rs.11,11,600/ incurred on replacement of electric companytrol panel a capital expenditure?
Accordingly, while answering the first question in favour of the revenue, it remitted the second 4 question and the additional question, as to whether the expenditure was one companytemplated by Section 37 of the Act, for fresh companysideration by the Tribunal.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in I.T.A. 20 of 1999 dated March 14, 2002.
The matter ultimately came up before the High Court at the instance of the revenue and two questions were framed for the opinion of the High Court which are as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case companyld the expenditure incurred on replacing the power panel be companysidered as 3 current repairs entitled to deduction under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act?
The matter went in appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which, by its order affirmed the findings of the appellate authority.
