Chief Justice — The following question is referred to the court for an answer under Clause (1) of Section 256 of the Income Tax Act: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the expen­diture of Rs. 45,149/-incurred by the assessee for installation of a new power line and equipments, can in law be regarded as an expen­diture allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Makhan Sarma Savapandit the assessee in this case manufactures and sells tea, In the past he privately generated energy at the cost of 95 paise per unit for running his factory unit. Later at his expense current lines were laid from the Assam Trunk Road to his factory Unit. The assessee paid the Assam Electricity Board Rs. 45,149/- and claimed under the Income Tax Act in the assessment year 1977 78 deduction of the amount of Rs.45, 149/-as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer without any discussion held the expenditure was capital expenditure. The appellate authority confirmed that order holding the assessee secured enduring benefit by the investment made therefore the expenditure can not be revenue expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal on further appeal held the expenditure facilitated the supply of energy to run the factory unit of the assessee therefore allowed the appeal. It is in the circumstances at the instance of the Revenue under Clause (1) of Section 256 of the Act the above question is referred to this court. Whether an expenditure is capital or revenue after numerous exerc­ises by the Supreme Court in India accepted in the case (1987) 2 SCC 96 , Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. vs. British India Corporation Ltd. Kanpur "that no test of universal application can laid down." The test laid in the leading case of United Kingdom, 10 TC 155, Atherton vs. British Insulated was explained away in 124 ITR 1, (Expire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax). Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax). "This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, at poi­nted out by Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes vs. Nohanga Co­nsolidated Copper Mines Ltd. (1965)58 ITR 241 (PC) it would be mislea ding to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all." The enduring benefit test was further elucidated holding : "If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be of revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future." The test of enduring benefit was thus considered not the sole test. It is in this regard we see tests were laid in two leading cases, 82 ITR 376, Lakshmiji Sugar Mill Co. P. Ltd, vs. CIT and 106 ITR 900, Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT. The tests laid in the former case was congealed to the facts of the case in the latter case. In 125 ITR 293, L. H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income tax, the latter case was held to be a case on facts and the for­mer decision in 82 ITR 376 was resurrected. In this state of wobbling of authorities true it is no test of universal application can be laid by the courts. In the instant case the assessee earlier was generating energy at the cost of -95 P. per unit for the use of the factory unit. Now electricity lines are laid down to run the factory efficiently. The fixed capital of the business is not touched. The question required to be answered is whether expenditure of Rs. 45,149/- in such circumstances is capital expenditure. We see the investment was made to run the factory efficiently. We hold in the facts of the case the expenditure is of revenue in nature and answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Dr. B. P. Saraf, J — I agree.