← 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

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

verify the claim as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Disallowance of software 4 to 6 case of Engineering expenses as capital expenditure 6 to 8 Analysis Centre of 2007-08 Without prejudice, depreciation Excellence Pvt. Ltd. 6 to 8 2008-09 to be allowed ... life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

verify the claim as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Disallowance of software 4 to 6 case of Engineering expenses as capital expenditure 6 to 8 Analysis Centre of 2007-08 Without prejudice, depreciation Excellence Pvt. Ltd. 6 to 8 2008-09 to be allowed ... life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &
Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

Coalshipments Pvt. Ltd. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that payments made towards off competition in a business to a rival would constitute capital expenditure if the object of making that payment is to derive advantage by eliminating competition over some month of time. 10. The Ld.AO further recorded ... erred in coming to the conclusion that Page 6 the assessee has derived enduring benefit from the payment made and therefore it is a capital expenditure. Moreover similar type of expenditure incurred by the appellant in the AY: 1991-92, has been allowed as revenue expenditure. Therefore following the decision

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2154/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

without considering the fact that the auditor has allocated interest cost of Rs. 21.48 Cr to cost of project, therefore is a capital expenditure. 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee is eligible

Owens Corning Composite Materials Llc, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6804/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6804/मुं/ 2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Owens-Corning Composite Materials Llc C/O.Owens Cornining (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aabco-4236-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. In Ground No.1 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Findings Of Assessing Officer In Treating Amount Received On Reimbursement Of Software Supplied By The Assessee To Its Indian Subsidiary As ‘Royalty’. In Ground No.2 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed Short Credit Of Tds.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Authorized Representative of the assessee rebutting the arguments raised on behalf of the Revenue submits that in so far as reference to capital expenditure in the submissions before the DRP, the expenditure towards reimbursement of software expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure in the hands of OCIPL

Petronet Mhb Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

with regard to the deductions. Section 57(iii) reads as under : "Section 57(iii) :- any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income." 8.4 Section 37 talks about the expenditure wholly

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

disallowance is to be made in respect of payments actually made during the relevant previous year. Grounds on disallowance of software expenses as capital expenditure 22. The learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing software expenses of Rs 451,18,32,386as capital expenditure and erred in making net addition ... case and without prejudice, the learned assessing officer has erred in not allowing depreciation at 60% in respect of software expenses held as capital expenditure for the earlier years. Grounds on disallowance of brand building expenses 25. The learned assessing officer has erred in treating brand building expenses

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

with regard to disallowance made under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.23.40 crores, being capital expenditure incurred on scientific research, under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The details of the deduction were given as under in the tax audit report :- Expenses Amount ... provisions of sec. 35(2AB) allows weighted deduction @ 150% of the expenses incurred on scientific research on in-house research and development facility. All capital expenditure incurred in this regard (other than the expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) are eligible for deduction

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

correct position of law as taken by the assessee in its books of accounts as principal amount for acquiring ‘finance lease assets’ is capital expenditure and not eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure. Further, the AO held that the interest payment as finance charges on lease- finance assets, which were ... treatment of assets and liability in its accounts was as per the law and the principal amount for acquiring financial lease asset is a capital expenditure. It is also the claim of the assessee that these assets are not owned by the assessee and at the end of the lease

M/S Ge T&D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 725/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010 - 11 Ge T&D India Ltd., The Dcit, 19/1, Ioc Building, Gst Road, Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Pallavaram, Chennai Chennai – 600 043. Pan: Aaacg 2115R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

data processing charges, the other expenses relating to Software Development Charges (Rs. 66378056) and IST expenses SLE (RS. 352984204) needs to be considered as capital expenditure only. Further, these payments are intended for enduring benefit. The claim of the assessee shall be disallowed and brought to taxation. 2. The assessee ... trade to prosper and an advantage that could be expected to last forever. Hence the expenditure claimed towards relocation expenses shall be treated as capital expenditure. The claim of the assessee shall be disallowed and brought to taxation. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit 2, Chennai vs. M/S India Japan Lighting Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 719/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

company in respect of manufacturing methods of products and license granted to the assessee to manufacture and sell the products is in nature of capital expenditure, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. :-4-: ITA. No: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 4. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record ... sell the products was treated by the Assessing Officer as acquiring of an advantage of enduring nature and thus, held it to be a capital expenditure. On the other hand, the argument advanced by the ld.AR is that those expenses for acquisition of technical know-how year after year have

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit 2, Chennai vs. M/S India Japan Lighting Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 718/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

company in respect of manufacturing methods of products and license granted to the assessee to manufacture and sell the products is in nature of capital expenditure, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. :-4-: ITA. No: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 4. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record ... sell the products was treated by the Assessing Officer as acquiring of an advantage of enduring nature and thus, held it to be a capital expenditure. On the other hand, the argument advanced by the ld.AR is that those expenses for acquisition of technical know-how year after year have

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in disallowing software expenses of Rs.1,06,73,775 and treating it as capital expenditure. b. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AO/DRP ought to have allowed depreciation @ 60% on the same. 6. Based on the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not allowing depreciation @ 60% on software expenditure of Rs.80,07,197 considered as a capital expenditure in AY 2008-09. 7. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in adding an amount

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1849/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Central Circle – 1(2) Constructions Pvt Ltd 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta 511, Dalmal Towers, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg 211, Nariman Point, (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0409H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv & Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv and Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee overlooking the various facts that the expenditure claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account is in the nature of capital expenditure and has to be capitalized under work in progress. Further the expenses pertaining to the completed projects has to be adjusted against the income

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed ... TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that

Equitas Development Initiatives Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed for all three assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2583/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2582, 2583 & 2082/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Trust only. 26. Premises at Erode: the agreement is in the nature of Equitas Development Initiatives Trust.” With regard to depreciation, since the entire capital expenditure incurred had been allowed as application of income in the past, the same is added back however since the business profits of the society

Equitas Development Initiatives Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed for all three assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2582/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2582, 2583 & 2082/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Trust only. 26. Premises at Erode: the agreement is in the nature of Equitas Development Initiatives Trust.” With regard to depreciation, since the entire capital expenditure incurred had been allowed as application of income in the past, the same is added back however since the business profits of the society

Equitas Development Initiatives Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed for all three assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2082/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2582, 2583 & 2082/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Trust only. 26. Premises at Erode: the agreement is in the nature of Equitas Development Initiatives Trust.” With regard to depreciation, since the entire capital expenditure incurred had been allowed as application of income in the past, the same is added back however since the business profits of the society

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

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

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

alongwith explanation 8 to Section 43(1) does not appear to have been looked into. The Interest on borrowings used for capital expenditure relating to a totally new business apart from existing business is to be capitalized as pre- commencement expenditure. Interest paid for any period beginning from the date ... claim, time and again reiterated about the generation of electricity during the year under consideration but kept silence on the total capacity of said capital expenditure and the capacity installed and put to use duly certified and ratified by the engineer's of the Electricity Boards. 4.4 In this connection