← 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

Excel Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. The CIT -CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 238/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleexcel Industries Ltd Vs. The Cit-Cc 6(3) 184-87, Excel Estate, 19Th Floor, Air India Sv Road, Jogeshwari Bldg, Nariman Point, (West)Mumbai – 400102 Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2488F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Kirit Kamdar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ajay Kumar. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 1,00,50,000/- Out Of Interest Paid Attributable To Loan To A Subsidiary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Levying An Amount Of Rs. 5,42,910/- On Account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. Of Interest U/S 115P For Dividend Distributed Under Section 115-O, For Which Dividend Distribution Tax Had Already Been Paid. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground On Additions Made To Book Profits U/S 115Jb.

For Appellant: Mr.Kirit Kamdar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

progress of Rs.3,19,36,769/-. The A.O has called for the details and the nexus of source of funds which were utilized for capital expenditure before the assets are put to Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. use and the proportionate interest expenses to be treated as capital expenditure. 3. Whereas ... assessee has filed a letter on 14.12.2018 referred at Para 3 of the A.O order explaining the nexus of capital expenditure and sources of funds.(i) Whereas the A.O found that in the A.Y.2015-16 similar issue was dealt and proportionate interest expenses are treated as capital expenditure and depreciation

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board Of Control For बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Cricket In India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ Road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. Ita. No.2851/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. Ita Nos. 2851 & 2852/M/2017 A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

view of the judicial decisions in this regard, which have held that a claim of depreciation is allowable to a trust even if the capital expenditure has been allowed as application. 22. Strictly in the alternative and without prejudice to the above if the income of the appellant is computed

Dy CIT 7 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 29/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सुं./ Ita Nos. 28 & 29/Mum/2020 (यनध ियण वषि / Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Omni Active Health Tax, 7(3)(1), Technologies Ltd. Room No. 142 G , T8B A Wing Phoenix House 1St Flr Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix Mil Compound 62 बनाम/ M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीऱाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadcp29149 अऩीर थी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से / Respondent By : Shri R.A Dhyani, Dr सुनव ई की त यीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 घोषण की त यीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, DR
Section 143(3)

nature. He therefore held that the expenditure has been given a colour of Revenue expenditure where the same is falling into the category of capital expenditure. Therefore, he disallowed a sum of ₹11,85,24,076/-. Consequently, the assessment order was passed under section ... learned Assessing Officer held that the expenditure of Rs.8,73,34,686/- incurred by the assessee is correctly held to be an capital expenditure. 06. The learned authorized representative relied upon the order of learned CIT(A) stated that expenditure incurred by the assessee is to protect its patent right