← All Phrases

“capital expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 373,515 judgments

The decision most relied on for capital expenditure is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on capital expenditure

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

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.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT
372 ITR 605 · 2015 · Supreme Court
343
citing judgments

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.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

Judgments citing capital expenditure

Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

expenditure, Ld. AO rejected the same and disallowed 50% of enhanced expenditure claimed in this year on the ground that it was capital expenditure. The same resulted into disallowance of Rs.25.89 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 4.2 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed major repair

JCIT(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Casa Grande Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

expenditure, Ld. AO rejected the same and disallowed 50% of enhanced expenditure claimed in this year on the ground that it was capital expenditure. The same resulted into disallowance of Rs.25.89 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 4.2 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed major repair

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bellary vs. M/S. South West Mining Limited, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 457/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

remove the over burden as per the terms of contract to initiate the extraction of mineral / ores and same is not a capital expenditure enabling the assessee of any perpetual benefit. Assessee further stated before the ld. AO that on termination of contract after the contract period the assessee ... observed that the expenditure incurred by Assessee on removal of overburden is held to be a Revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. This overburden removal expenditure and Mining Development Expanses is an allowable expense u/s 37(1) of Act. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted as follows:- (i) The said expenditure