← 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

ACIT- Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. First Advantage Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle 4(2)(1) Vs. First Advantage Private Room No. 640/642, 6Th Limited, First Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Interface Building No.7, M.K. Road, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai – 40 Mumbai – 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0706E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Zeenia Handa Respondent By : Nitesh Joshi & Sunil Jhunjhunwala Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 14.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Citia) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 37(1) Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,01,96,568/- Incurred Towards Software License Expenses By Considering The Same As Revenue Expenditure. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Considering The Expenses Incurred By The Assessee On Software License Fee As Revenue Expenditure Instead Of Capital Expenditure, Without Appreciating The Fact That It Is An "Intangible Asset. The Income-Tax Act Clearly Categorizes The "License" As An Intangible Assets For Claiming Depreciation U/S 32 Which Is Based On The Ordinary Meaning Of The Same."

For Appellant: Ms. Zeenia HandaFor Respondent: Nitesh Joshi &
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 37(1)

erred in considering the expenses incurred by the assessee on software License Fee as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure, without appreciating the fact that it is an "Intangible asset. The Income-tax act clearly categorizes the "License" as an intangible assets for claiming depreciation u/s 32 which is based ... assessee’s own case for assessment year 2016-17 and assessment year 2017-18 by treating the software license expenses of the nature of capital expenditure. Therefore, AO has P a g e | 3 ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) Vs. First Advantage Private Limited disallowed the claim of software expenses