Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

372 ITR 605Supreme Court of India2015#223 most cited

What is Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

An expenditure does not automatically become capital in nature merely because it results in some enduring benefit for the assessee; it can be treated as revenue expenditure if incurred for genuine business purposes.

343

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT · 372 ITR 605 · SC · 2015 · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · deferred revenue expenditure · expenditure disallowance · business expenditure · allowability of expenditure

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 361276 CTR 1231 Taxmann 5

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.582 To 584/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 591/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maxport India Pvt. Ltd. C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160019. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaicm9120E अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.482 & 483/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vaishali Aggarwal C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160022. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpa4025M अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 846/Chd/2023

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…t compliance of requirement of s.36(2). He has contended that it was a settled principle of law that reflection in accounts of a transaction was not determinative of its allowability for tax purposes and vice-versa as held in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC). He has further relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of “PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd” [2020] 115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) to contend that that a new claim for the first time can be made in the ITR filed u/s 153A post search though, such claim was not made in the ITR filed u/s 139. He has further submitted that the taxability…