← 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

M/S. Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., Vs. Ito, 100-A, Cycle Market, Ward-12(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaci8493G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Not Allowing Deduction For Rs.21,00,000/- Being The Amount Of Expenditure Incurred On Research & Development. The Action Being Arbitrary, Erroneous & Unlawful Must Be Quashed With Directions For Relief.” 3. This Appeal Was Earlier, Dismissed By The Tribunal For Want Of Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.604/Del/2019, Order Dated 5Th March, 2021, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not filed the supportive details. It is his submission that every expenditure which gives enduring benefit cannot be treated as a capital expenditure. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has not gone through the details and, therefore, the matter should be remanded to his file. I find some force