JUDGMENT : Dalveer Bhandari, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to our notice the judgment passed by this Court in Commissioner Income Tax v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, (2007) 15 SCC 107 wherein, in similar matters, this Court has held as under: "There are a number of tests which are required to be considered while deciding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature. A number of judgments have been cited before us in that regard. However, in the absence of the requisite details regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement, the matter needs to be remitted to the CIT (A). There is one more reason why we are inclined to remit the matter. As stated above, the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner Income Tax v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 403 (Mad.) has been set aside by this Court as there was confusion between the tests to be applied in respect of Section 31 vis-a-vis the test to be applied in the case of Section 37 of the I.T. Act. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we remit the matter to the CIT (A) who will decide the question in accordance with law. Before concluding we may state that according to the Department in the present case the assessee was not entitled to claim replacement expenditure as revenue expenditure as it was not incurred to replace an old worn out item of machinery; that on the contrary the old machine has been replaced by a new machine which constitutes an advantage of an enduring nature and therefore the expenditure was capital in nature. However, according to learned counsel for the assessee the said test propounded on behalf of the Department is no more applicable. We express no opinion on the afore stated contentions at this stage. It is for the CIT (A) to decide the afore stated questions and contentions raised by the Department as well as by the assessee. The CIT (A) will decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence." 3. It is for the CIT (A) to decide the afore stated questions and contentions raised by the Department as well as by the assessee. The CIT (A) will decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence." 3. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit this appeal to CIT (A) who is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in terms of the directions given in Commissioner Income Tax v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, (2007) 15 SCC 107 . 4. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 5. No order as to costs.