← 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

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6718/Mum/2012 (िन.व. 2008-09) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & A.K.Jawadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By :Shri Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and A.K.JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 80I

raised secured and unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer has disallowed expenditure on raising of loan for the reason that loan has been disbursed for capital expenditure and not for augmentation of the working capital and loan funds have been utilized for non-business considerations. While deciding the preceding grounds ... from profits of business: The assessee has assailed the addition of Rs.8,44,83,220/- in respect of External Commercial Borrowings(ECB) for incurring capital expenditure. The contention of the assessee is that in assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had suffered loss on foreign exchange 13 fluctuations. The said

State Bank of India(As A Successor to Bhaartiya Mahila Bank Limited), Mumbai vs. Principle Commissionr of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1052/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Pcit-2, Mumbai (As A Successor To Bhartiya Room No. 344, Aayakar Vs. Mahila Bank Limited) Bhavan, M. K. Road, Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020. Taxation 3Rd Floor, Corporation Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Bank Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Wherein It Has Challenged The Validity Of Ao Passing The Order In The Name Of Erstwhile Bhartiya Mahila Bank Limited (Hereinafter “Bmbl”), Even Though, It Was Merged With M/S. State Bank Of India W.E.F. 01.04.2017 (Vide Notification Dated 22.02.2017). In This Regard, It Is Noted That From 01.04.2017, Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd Got Merged/Amalgamated

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263

revenue. Moreover, it was pointed out by the assessee that tax auditor has also not reported this expense under the clause for capital expenditure or contingent in nature, which further shows that the expenses are revenue in nature, incurred towards an ascertained liability in terms of the valid agreement

Vijay Spinning Mills Limited, Krishna District vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 181/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

Ld.AO has erred by levying penalty on the addition of Rs.23,78,022 which is merely a reclassification from revenue expenditure to capital expenditure. 9. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld.AO erred by not considering the Indexed cost of acquisition in computing the penalty on the long term