← 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

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessee’s suppressed income. Further, the AO did not grant depreciation on certain expenditure incurred in the earlier year which was held to capital expenditure. 3 IT(TP)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/s.VMware Software India Private Limited. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP vide its directions ... spare parts. Thus, as per the said assessment orders, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the said amounts, which are disallowed as capital expenditure. 18. After hearing the rival submissions, we direct the A.O. to examine whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the expenditure disallowed

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Lokhandwala Infrasatructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 236/Mum/2015 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Lokhandwala Dcit Cen. Cir.– 8(3), Infrastructurepvt. Ltd. R. No. 659, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 54A, Jindal Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaace1568L (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Mani Jain, Ld. Ars सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.08.2014, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-38, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

corresponding expenses should be deducted against the income offered for taxation and accordingly, he worked out disallowance of Rs. Rs.8,20,24,611/- being capital expenditure. 9. Before the Ld. CIT (A), assessee had duly clarified with all the documentary evidences of the expenses claimed which were verified

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2Nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, Mk Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

L.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of company formation expenses of Rs.2,50,000/-, as these expenses are in the nature of capital expenditure. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs.5,246/- law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of interest ... made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the company M/s Vego Chemicals, Mumbai formation expenses which is in the nature of capital expenditure and no proper explanations were filed. 3.(iii) the assessee has claimed legal expenditure of Rs.1,48,300/- debited to profit and loss account

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

while computing income u/s. 57. The Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings disallowed the said expenses by holding that the said amount was disclosed as capital expenditure in form 3CED. The DRP upheld such disallowance made by the Ld.AO. Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted that the said expenses is allowable