There may be an argument that this could be a repair. Maybe needs further information.
Renewal, replacement, or reconstruction of, the whole or substantially the whole of a thing or structure ('entirety') is likely to be considered a capital improvement rather than a deductible repair. However in this case it appears that only a part of the total installation is being replaced.
Determining what is an entirety is a question of fact in each case. According to TR 97/23, property is more likely to be an entirety if: (a) The property is separately identifiable as a principal item of capital equipment. (b) The thing or structure is an integral part, but only a part, of entire premises and is capable of providing a useful function without regard to any other part
of the premises. (c) The thing or structure is a separate and distinct item of plant in itself from the thing or structure which it serves, or (d) The thing is a 'unit of property' as that expression is used in the depreciation deduction provisions of the income tax law.
Repairs generally restore the item to its former function and efficiency whereas improvements increase an item's functionality and/or efficiency.
A repair may increase the items efficiency slightly and still be classed as a repair. However, where the item's function or efficiency is improved substantially or the work changes the function of the item, the work is considered to be an improvement and capital in nature.
