← All Phrases

“capital expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 373,515 judgments

M/S. VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Punit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR. DR
Section 250Section 37(1)

above, CIT (A) erred in also holding that the expenditure of Rs.77,82,113 /- incurred on site development expenses and sample flat are capital expenditure in nature, on the ground that Appellant has admitted that the sample flat forms part of capital structure of the project and will be ultimately ... Without prejudice to the above, the CIT (A) erred in treating the expenditure of Rs. 77.82,113/- incurred on site and sample flat as capital expenditure. Even assuming but without admitting that the same is not allowable as revenue expenditure, the said expenditure shall form part of the project cost

DCIT, GURGAON vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3202/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

That both CIT(A) & AO have erred in law and on facts in treating, IPO expenses amounting to Rs. 1,68,30,430/- as capital expenditure arbitrarily and without any justification.It is contended that the ratio of the judgements in case ... Assessment Year 2009–10, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is that the IPO expenses have been treated as capital expenditure. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the IPO was not brought but aborted, therefore, the expenses made on raising the IPO is a revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 3774/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: \nMs. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14ASection 43(5)

That both CIT(A) & AO have erred in law and on facts in treating, IPO\nexpenses amounting to Rs.1,68,30,430/- as capital expenditure arbitrarily\nand without any justification.It is contended that the ratio of the\njudgements in case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3773/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

That both CIT(A) & AO have erred in law and on facts in treating, IPO expenses amounting to Rs. 1,68,30,430/- as capital expenditure arbitrarily and without any justification.It is contended that the ratio of the judgements in case ... Assessment Year 2009–10, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is that the IPO expenses have been treated as capital expenditure. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the IPO was not brought but aborted, therefore, the expenses made on raising the IPO is a revenue

M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3626/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

That both CIT(A) & AO have erred in law and on facts in treating, IPO expenses amounting to Rs. 1,68,30,430/- as capital expenditure arbitrarily and without any justification.It is contended that the ratio of the judgements in case ... Assessment Year 2009–10, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is that the IPO expenses have been treated as capital expenditure. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the IPO was not brought but aborted, therefore, the expenses made on raising the IPO is a revenue

M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3625/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

That both CIT(A) & AO have erred in law and on facts in treating, IPO expenses amounting to Rs. 1,68,30,430/- as capital expenditure arbitrarily and without any justification.It is contended that the ratio of the judgements in case ... Assessment Year 2009–10, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is that the IPO expenses have been treated as capital expenditure. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the IPO was not brought but aborted, therefore, the expenses made on raising the IPO is a revenue

WELKIN DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5070/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

fact to uphold AO's addition of Rs.79,42,978/-being interest\npaid to Indiabulls Finance on their loans is capital expenditure as there is no revenue is\ngenerated in Ghansoli Project.\"\n\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return u/sec.\n139

WELKIN DEVEOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5069/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

fact to upheld AO's addition of Rs.79,42,978/-being interest paid to Indiabulls Finance on their loans is capital expenditure as there is no revenue is generated in Ghansoli Project.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return u/sec

B R MORDEM SCHOOL SAMITI,PAURI vs. I T O, EXEMPTION WARD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

society.\nb. Divine Education Institute & social Development\nSociety Vs. ITO (Del - Trib)\nCorpus fund, which is meant for Specific purpose to\nmeet out capital expenditure, cannot be a part of annual\nreceipts of educational institution even if no registration\nu/s.12AA has been granted.\nc. CIT Vs Shanthi Devi Educational Trust

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

failed to consider that the interest of Rs.7,35,719/- earned from bank deposits out of funds accumulated in sinking fund meant for capital expenditure constitutes capital receipts liable to tax under the I.T Act, 1961 [Act), thus assessee- appellant prays that the interest earned from bank deposits

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5)-GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

failed to consider that the interest of Rs.7,35,719/- earned from bank deposits out of funds accumulated in sinking fund meant for capital expenditure constitutes capital receipts liable to tax under the I.T Act, 1961 [Act), thus assessee- appellant prays that the interest earned from bank deposits

ESCORTS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7394/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

nthe earlier years. In such a scenario, we cannot say that when\ncorporate guarantees were invoked by the lender, the payments\neffected were capital expenditure. Assessee as a prudent business\nman must have found it commercially expedient to make the\nsettlement on account of working capital loans raised

SHANTI DEVI JAIN MEMORIAL TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

erred in observing that, Rs.1,10,20,000.00 on account of advance given to Scholar Welfare Society and Rs.1,20,000.00 on account of Capital Expenditure are not the eligible charitable investment as made by Assessee Appellant Trust and has made the addition of Rs.70,80,930.00 on account ... purposes u/s 11(1)(a), provided specific conditions are met. The advance given for acquiring Scholars Educational Welfare Society may be viewed as a capital expenditure incurred to advance the objects of the trust only if the acquisition is Page 5 of 7 M/s Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust being

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction under section 32AC in respect of capital expenditure incurred by the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation, ignoring the specific condition that such deduction is allowable only to the entity which acquired and installed the plant and machinery during ... that since the assessee in its return had taken a conscious explicit plea with regard to the part of the claim being ascribable to capital expenditure and partly to revenue expenditure, it was not open for the assessee to plead for the first time before the ITAT that the entire

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction under section 32AC in respect of capital expenditure incurred by the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation, ignoring the specific condition that such deduction is allowable only to the entity which acquired and installed the plant and machinery during ... that since the assessee in its return had taken a conscious explicit plea with regard to the part of the claim being ascribable to capital expenditure and partly to revenue expenditure, it was not open for the assessee to plead for the first time before the ITAT that the entire

SURESHA CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 68

parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue relates to disallowance of ₹1,00,37,112 by treating the same as capital expenditure forming part of closing work-in-progress. Page 7 of 15 18.1 From the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO has merely observed

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed, in the above terms

ITA 6930/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, & M.A.GohelFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (Ld. CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

made the additions of Rs.88,95,454/- and Rs.2,64,619/- respectively on account of accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, and capital expenditure, which was claimed as application. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions made by the CPC. However, could not get any relief

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
For Respondent: \nShri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

{ "clean_text": "INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

accumulation, leaving no taxable surplus of income over expenditure. 3. In lieu of para 1 & 2 above sum of Rs 17,41,999/- towards capital expenditure was not reported erroneously with non-capital (revenue) expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- at Sl. No 1. If this capital expenditure ... added to non-capital expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- then also total comes to Rs 1,30,65,156/- only and balance of Rs 2,12,429/- representing surplus out of 15% of Rs 19,91,638/- also results in nil income chargeable to tax. 4. Non-Capital

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

contested that sum paid for renewal of mining lease in the form of stamp duty and incidental registration charges are revenue in nature & not capital expenditure [‘capex’]. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Syal for the benefit of rival parties candidly adverted to the recent decision

Showing 1–20 of 3,515 · Page 1 of 176

...