The judgment of court was delivered by P. C. JAIN J.-In this reference application, following question of law has been referred for opinion of this court: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of Rs. 31,108 incurred by assessee on replacement of tin shed was revenue expenditure and admissible under Income-tax Act, 1961? " Briefly stated, facts of case are that assessee is firm which crushes oil seeds and produces oil, khal, etc. It has its own tin shed factory stores and boiler situated in premises was owned by firm. During accounting year ending on July 22, 1970, corresponding to assessment year 1971-72, tin sheds were blown off on account of storm. Consequently, firm incurred expenditure of Rs. 31,108 in replacing roof. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed aforesaid expenditure as being current repairs and requested deduction thereof. assessing authority did not agree with contention of assessee and held expenditure to be of capital nature and accordingly capitalised it and allowed depreciation thereon. assessee went in appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner but appeal was also dismissed on similar grounds. assessee further preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that said expenditure was incurred as part of its profit-earning process and not for enduring benefit or advantage. It was contended that expenditure was either allowable as current repairs or under section 37 of Act. learned Tribunal accepted aforesaid contention of assessee. Revenue moved application before Tribunal for making reference to this court after framing aforesaid question of law. learned counsel for assessee submitted that expenditure incurred was integral part of profit-earning process. It was also submitted that tin shed did not last for more than two to three years and, as such, it was sort of recurring expenditure which cannot be said as tantamounting to acquisition of asset or right of permanent character. learned counsel placed reliance on Hanuman Motor Service v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 88 (Mys), CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 108 ITR 620 (AP) and Permali Wallace Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 43 (MP). In aforesaid cases, it was held that repairs carried out by assessee would not strictly come under purview of renovation and that expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure. In case of CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that current repairs to plant and machinery is allowable expenditure. On basis of aforesaid authority, we hold that expenditure incurred by assessee in form of replacement of tin shed was revenue expenditure and admissible under Income-tax Act, 1961. Our answer to reference is, therefore, in affirmative, i. e., in favour of assessee and against Revenue. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shree Hari Industrie