Section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

Section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Ballimal Naval Kishore v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I spent heavily doing up my premises and plant. Is that 'current repairs', or has the AO rightly called it capital?
  It depends on whether what you did preserved an existing asset or produced a new one. The Court approved the test that current repairs means expenditure whose purpose is not renewal or restoration but only preserving or maintaining an asset that already exists. On the facts — a cinema rebuilt with new machinery, new furniture, new sanitary fittings, new wiring and extensive structural work — it held this was a total renovation and could not be called current repairs.
• CIT v Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I claimed the expenditure under one head before the Assessing Officer, lost, and now want the Tribunal to allow it under a different head. Can the Tribunal do that, or am I stuck with the plea I chose?
  The Tribunal can do it. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal is competent to pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit, that nothing in the Act restricts it to the questions raised before the departmental authorities, and that all questions of law or of fact relating to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before it. Where the reasons the authorities gave for rejecting one contention justify relief on another ground, the authorities and the Tribunal are under a duty to grant that relief. The right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.