MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.376 of 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax ...........Appellant Vs. M/s.Agricultural Aviation Pvt. Ltd.....Respondent Mr. P.S.Sahadevan, for the appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 20th February,2009 DATED: 20th February,2009 DATED: 20th February,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Tribunal has concurred with the finding of fact recorded by C.I.T. (Appeals) that the expenses were incurred for consumption of minor spare-parts,mostly imported from outside India. These were incurred for repairs of the helicopter which would be permissible deduction within the meaning of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, 1963. 2. Learned Counsel places reliance o the judgment in Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr. vs. Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr. vs. Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 224 I.T.R. 413. Commissioner of Income Tax, 224 I.T.R. 413. Commissioner of Income Tax, 224 I.T.R. 413. On facts down there the building which was used as a ginning factory was converted into a cinema theatre. It is in that context the Supreme Court held that the expenses are capital in nature and, therefore, has to be treated as renovation expenses. In our opinion the facts there and the facts here are entirely different. The judgment is, therefore, distinguishable. There is no merit in this Appeal. Appeal accordingly dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)