Pre operative expenses of extension of business are revenue in nature in case of existing business

SRF Ltd HIGH COURT OF DELHI [2015] 59 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) JANUARY  15, 2015 (FY  2005-06) relying on Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 405/[2008] 166 Taxman 115 (Delhi). further relying on  Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 185 (SC) where the assessee ran a jewellery business and then commenced business in the exhibition of cinematographic films. The assessee obtained loans for building a cinema theatre and the question was whether the interest payable on the loans borrowed for the new business was a revenue expenditure or not. While answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Supreme Court found that the two businesses were composite in the sense that there was interconnection, interlacing or interdependence between the jewellery business and the cinema business. 
However w.e.f AY 2004-05 proviso to section 36(1)(iii) inserted a proviso:
"Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession (whether capitalised in the books of account or not); for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction" 

Since SC Judgement  itself is not applicable hence whether Delhi high court judgement relying upon that judgement can be relied ? Interestingly Delhi High Court in Jay Engg distinguished SC Judgement in Challapali Sugar which is itself a judgement holding that pre-operative interest to be capitalized