← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Global Agro Corp, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4544/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Global Agro Corp, Room No.1704, Plot No.07,1St Floor, E-2 Block, Central Market West Civic Centre, Avenue Road, New Delhi-110002. West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Aakfg2650A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of 21.11.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10990/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In Export Of Rice & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 66,28,650/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee From Time To Time, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Wherein Following Additions Were Made:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

submits that assessee has not produced any order directing the assessee to pay such amount and further failed to establish whether it is a capital expenditure or Revenue expenditure. He therefore, requested for the restoration of the order of AO. 27. On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee vehemently

Infres Methodex Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Delhi

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

ITA 449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Block-B-1, Plot No.D-7, Circle-12(1) Mohan Co-Operative Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aabci1964R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rahul Kant, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-4/10728/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2017, Declaring Total Income At Inr 22,86,60,530/-. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Marketing Of Currency Counting Machines & Verifiers & Paper Shredders Etc. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Has Made The Disallowance Of Inr 22,91,385/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Besides This, The Disallowance Of Inr 14,82,901/- Is Made Out Of Payment Made To Clubs & Inr 31,57,057/- Were Disallowed Out Of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses. The Ao Also Made Addition Of Inr 2,02,76,999/- On Account Of Custom Duty Paid By Holding The Same As Unexplained Expenditure.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 69C

appeal No.3, in our considered opinion, the expenses incurred on one time entrance fee paid for corporate membership fee was in the nature of capital expenditure and, therefore, it is capital in nature. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Ld.AR

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

applicable. This aspect was also noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. 2.2.2. Expenditure on buyback of shares is not a capital expenditure • Buyback of its own shares by a Company would neither result in creation of any new capital asset nor would provide enduring benefits ... create any capital asset that would provide enduring benefits to the Company and accordingly, expenditure on buyback would not qualify as a capital expenditure and hence, the question of applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) shall not arise. • Basis the above submissions, we humbly pray before this Hon'ble Bench