Since common points are involved these Deptl. Appeals for asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1981-82 are being disposed of together. assessee has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 19,82,021, Rs. 15,45,725, Rs. 11,40,494 and Rs. 2,94,2015 during previous years relevant for asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. assessee claimed that above expenditure should be allowed as current repairs or in alternative as revenue expenditure. ITO disallowed claim. He held that expenditure incurred will result in improvement of quality of yarn and thus enduring benefit is obtained by assessee. If some expenditure is incurred to replace small parts of machinery such expenditure is not allowable as revenue expenditure. expenditure allowable has been incurred for modernisation of mill and to enhance its output and to increase its productivity in later years. Thus expenditure of capital nature. If their is substantial replacement of existing capital asset expenditure incurred for such replacement will not be allowed as deduction for repairs or replacements. Thus he disallowed assessee's claim in all these years. assessee appealed to CIT (A). He accepted assessee's claim. He held that items purchased constituted part of machinery which had become useless or worn out and there was no wholesale replacement of entire plant and machinery. expenditure incurred should be allowed as current repairs under s.31 (i) or in alternative as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1). Against same Revenue has preferred these appeals. ld. Deptl. Representative submitted that CIT (A) was not Justified in holding that huge expenditure incurred by assessee was allowable as current repairs under s. 31 or in alternative as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1). He ought to have held that expenditure incurred was of capital nature. ld. counsel for assessee kly urged that full details of parts replaced were placed before CIT (A) who has looked into same in detail. worn out parts were replaced by new ones. He further urged that mill was established in 1952 when machinery was installed. It is only after 25 years assessee has incurred this expenditure for replacement of worn-out parts. expenditure incurred is allowable either as current repairs under s. 31(i) or as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1). He urged that expenditure incurred cannot be treated as capital expenditure. He supported order of CIT (A). We have considered rival submissions. Full details of expenditure for purchase of parts have been examined by CIT (A). In para 4.1 he has found as under: "I have gone through details of items purchased, costs of which were included in total expenditure mentioned above. Out of total expenditure of Rs. 19,82,021, for asst. yr. 1976-77 main items of expenditure were in respect of 10 frames of S.K.F. Drafting Materials costing Rs. 4,14,973. 45 frames of 10" Dia Aluminium Pulley Drive conversion material frames costing Rs. 4,13,409, 31 Lift conversion material frames costing Rs. 1,03,441, 14000 numbers of Ani wedge flanged solid steel frames costing Rs. 1,15,095, 35 sets of Metallic card clothing for MMC 1016 cards costing Rs. 1,85,285, and such other items. For asst. yr. 1975-76 major item of expenses were in respect of 9072 spindles of 7" Lift Aluminium Play type spindles costing of Rs.4,02.833, 13 frames of SKF High Drafting conversion material costing Rs.5,60,149 4 SKF Top Arm Drafting material frames costing Rs. 2,18,169, and 2544 Spindles of SKF Components costing Rs. 1,40,623. For t h e asst. yr. 1980-81 major items of expenses were regarding 16 Nos. Seamens, 15 HP Motors costing Rs. 78,510, 14 Nos. Ring Frame Starters costing Rs. 32,240, 2 Frames of SKF High Drafting conversion material costing Rs. 95,289, 3004 Nos. 7" Plug Type Spindles costing Rs. 1,55,697 one frame of SKF High Drafting conversion material type PK-225 consting Rs. 52,900. For asst. yr. 1981-82 main itmes of expenditure were in respect of 2 Frames of Laxmi Retixe High Speed Draw costing Rs. 2,30,752, 3 frames of MMC Draw costing Rs. 3,19,544, and 2 Frames of Laxmi Retire canfed speed costing Rs. 5,53,573 one Laxmi Retire High Speed draw frame costing Rs. 3,10,853 and two Laxmi Retire High Speed Draw frames costing Rs. 2,09,220. From nature of background for replacement and introduction of these, it is evident that these are introduced considering fact that existing plant and machinery which was imported one is use for nearly 30 years have become out moded". Then at end of para 4.2 he has held as under: "In instant case from details of expenses incurred. I find that items purchased constituted paras of machinery, which had become useless or worn-out and there was no wholesale replacement of entire plant and machinery which was imported by appellant from UK about three decades back. In light of above High Court judgements and Supreme Court decision in Mahalaxmi Textile Mills' case, I hold that above items of expenses should be allowed as "current repairs" under s. 31 (i) or in alternative as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1) of IT Act." It is clear from above details found in order of CIT (A) that entire machinery has not been replaced. It is only parts of machinery which had become useless or wornout which were replaced. On account of replacement of useless or worn out parts efficiency of machinery has increased and production also would be increased in later years. But for replacement of those parts of production would have gone down. But on account o f that it cannot be held that assessee derived advantage of enduring nature. In Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113: (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) Supreme Court held that if advantage consists merely in facilitating assessee trading operations or enabling management in conduct of assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving fixed capital untouched expenditure would be on revenue account, even though advantage may endure for identifinite future and test of enduring benefits, therefore, not certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to particular facts and circumstances of given case. In Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. vs. CIT A.P. III (1980) 15 CTR (AP) 216: (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP), assessee replaced old diesel engine by new one in motor van used and kept for its own business. assessee claimed that expenditure incurred was allowable as revenue expenditure. claim was rejected by Department and Tribunal. On reference Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that replacement of old diesel engine by new one did not bring in any new asset into existence. It was done with view to preserve and maintain asset in existence. expenditure incurred fell within meaning o f current repairs and hence was admissible as deduction under s. 31. It was further held that 'repairs' means restoration by replacement of subsidiary parts or whole and repairs may be small or major and if it is major repair it may involve considerable amount of money but money spent alone cannot be factor to determine whether expenditure falls under current repairs or not and it is nature of repairs carried out by assessee that matters for grant of deduction. It was further held that if amount is spent for preserving and maintaining present asset in existence it cannot be said that expenditure so incurred is capital in nature. In CIT Madras vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 SC, assessee spent Rs. 93,215 for introduction of Casablanca conversion system" in its spinning plant. It has involved replacement of certain roller stands and fluted rollers fitted with rubber aprons to spinning machinery removal of ring frames from certain existing parts, introduction. Inter alia, of ball bearing jockey-pulleys for converting original hand drivers to tapedrivers and other additions and alterations in drafting mechanism. On those facts Supreme Court held that Tribunal had evidence before it from which it could be concluded that by introducing 'Casablanca conversion system' assessee made current repairs to machinery and plant and sum of Rs. 93,215 was allowable as expenditure incurred for repairs under s. 10(2) (v) of IT Act, 1922. In CIT (UP) vs. Atherton West and Co Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 352 (All) Allahabad High Court held that if part of machine becomes unserviceable due to wear and replacement of such part will be covered by expression "current repairs" for purposes of s. 10(2)(v) of Indian IT Act, 1922. On facts of that case it was held that cotton bowl which is part of calendering machine employed by assessee it becomes unserviceable due to wear and tear and has to be replaced and replacement or cotton bowls under such circumstances is covered by expression "current repairs". In Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla vs. CIT (Bombay City-II) (1974) 97 ITR 24 (Bom) Bombay High Court held that sum can be allowed as cost of repairs even though expenditure in particular year is heavy on account of fact that it is undertaken to remedy effect of several years of wear and tear or neglect and also in spite of fact that such expenditure may not be necessary for several years to after repairs have been effected. In that case it was held that expenditure incurred by substituting asbestos cement in place of worn out corrugated iron sheets was not of capital nature. In CIT vs. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (1983) 37 CTR (Mad) 146: (1984) 148 ITR 176 (Mad) assessee incurred expenditure for replacement of conventional card clothing by metallic card clothing in carding section of assessees spinning mill. On those facts, Madras High Court held that expenditure incurred would have to be treated as charges for repairs and exigible to deduction under s. 37 of IT Act, 1961. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Bombay North (1956) 30 ITR 338 (Bom) assessee company which runs textile mill incurred expenditure for replacing certain parts in 646 looms which was claimed as expenditure for current repairs under s. 10(2) (v) of IT Act, 1922. Bombay High Court held that expenditure was incurred to preserve and maintain asset i.e. looms and it was expenditure incurred for current repairs and was allowable as deduction under s. 10(2) (v) of Indian IT Act, 1922. ratio laid down in above cases would squarely apply to instant case. In instant case worn out part of machinery have been replaced by new ones. expenditure incurred for replacing worn out parts by new parts is allowable as "current repairs" under s. 31(1). Alternatively such expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1) of IT Act, 1961. CIT (A) was justified in allowing said expenditure. Thus we uphold his order. In result, appeals fail and are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. ANDHRA CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.