Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

124 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1980#97 most cited

What is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

608

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · Section 37 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · test of enduring benefit not conclusive · business necessity · commercial expediency · practical business point of view · facilitation of trading operations · business efficiency

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date of Pronoun…

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AYAKAR BHAWAN vs. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD, ANDHERI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4278/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3(1)(1) 402/Ackruti Star, Midc, 607, Ayakar Bhawan, M.K. Andheri East, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaacs8598L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Jitendra Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), Dated 21.04.2025, Passed Against The Order By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.03.2014, For Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.7,32,38,757/- Incurred By The Assessee For Building Of ‘Samsonite’ Brand Without Appreciating The Fact That These Expenses Were Incurred Towards Creating Intangible Rights In Its Favour Which Are Capable Of Giving Enduring Benefits To The Assessee Company & Hence Are Assignable Over A Number Of Year?

For Appellant: Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…sessee-company on corporate advertisement to maintain its corporate image which resulted in increased sale of products, was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. 7 Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2010-11 (ii) Expire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1(SC) Proposition: Even if there is the enduring benefit, if expenditure is in revenue filed same is to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. (iii) Sassoon J David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261(SC) Proposition: It is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure is to be incurred for the business. 22. Furthermore learned counsel submi…

Showing 120 of 608 · Page 1 of 31

...