← 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

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133(6)Section 80I

assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act for an amount of Rs.26,69,58,914/- comprising both revenue and capital expenditure. He observed, though the assessee had fulfilled some of the conditions for claiming deduction, however, all the conditions have not been fulfilled. According ... objective to promote investment in technology upgradation and was granted @ 1% of FOB value of Export. The investment in technology is clearly a capital expenditure. So far as the incremental incentive scheme is concerned, the incentive was linked with incremental export if a particular year, export sale was more than

Sahajanand Technologies Private Limted, Surat vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat.

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

ITA 255/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Building A1, Sahajanand Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Estate Vakharia Wadi, Nr. Gate, Surat-395 001 Dabholi Char Rasta, Surat- 395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs 4343 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed paper book and submitted that the Ministry of Science and Technology has allowed whole capital expenditure of Rs.30.15 lakhs for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB); however, out of total revenue expenditure of Rs.2,70,09,468/-, it allowed Rs.2 ... perused the provisions of Sec.35 of the Act. There is no dispute that the appellant incurred revenue expenditure of Rs.2,70,09,468/- and capital expenditure of Rs.30,15,400/- for R&D during the year. Out of the above, the appellant was found eligible for deduction

Mithra (Madras Institute to Habilitate Retarded Afflicted), Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 1839/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1839/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Mithra (Madras The Income Tax Officer, Institute To Habilitate Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Retarded Afflicted), Chennai. Plot No.D-171, R V Nagar, Anna Nagar East, S.O, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102. Pan: Aaatm 0481H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.20,94,730/- us/.11(6) of the Act. Further, it was submitted by the assessee that the capital expenditure incurred in the current year amounting to Rs.40,08,670/- ought to be allowed as application of income. The FAA however rejected the contentions ... cost has been allowed as application of income in the previous years or in the current year. Further, FAA held as regards application of capital expenditure of Rs.40,08,670/-, assessee has not claimed the same in the return of income i.e, ITR 7 filed by the assessee. Hence

Ocl India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4068/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &
Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

disallowance of Environmental Study Expenses. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO has disallowed Rs.12,09,199/- towards Environmental Study Expenses treating it as capital expenditure. He submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Tribunal ... disallowance of payments made to various persons on account of technical knowhow and disallowance of Environmental Study Expenses treating as capital expenditure, the ld. DR placed reliance on findings of the AO. However, the ld. DR fairly stated that both these issues have been considered by the Tribunal

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ocl India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &
Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

disallowance of Environmental Study Expenses. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO has disallowed Rs.12,09,199/- towards Environmental Study Expenses treating it as capital expenditure. He submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Tribunal ... disallowance of payments made to various persons on account of technical knowhow and disallowance of Environmental Study Expenses treating as capital expenditure, the ld. DR placed reliance on findings of the AO. However, the ld. DR fairly stated that both these issues have been considered by the Tribunal

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

added A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 back to the income of the assessee. On the issue of disallowance of Rs.14,96,91,583/- of capital expenditure, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had constructed these assets out of huge profits generated from the hospital and educational institutions ... earning more income, even though the trust had been granted registration under section 12A, the expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of capital expenditure towards of application of income should be denied, as it was not for charitable purposes. The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the deposit

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.11,35,806/- being disallowance of capital expenditure debited to the profit & loss account and not disallowed in the computation of income? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... existence is undoubtedly capital in nature, the repairs and replacements to portions of the building for the continued enjoyment of that building is not capital expenditure. The fact that new material has to be used while replacing a worn out or damaged part of portion of a building does

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1283/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co. 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. Aabck 1255 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 /09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.04.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 26.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,11,89,350/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 09.03.2016 & Determined The Total Income At Rs.6,77,12,890/- By, Inter Alia, Making Additions Towards Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure For Rs.52,58,956/-, Rental Income Not Offered To Tax At Rs.8,77,945/-, Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation At Rs.3,75,000/- & Addition Towards Dividend Stripping Income U/S.94(7) Of The Act For Rs.1,636/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

determined the total income at Rs.6,77,12,890/- by, inter alia, making additions towards disallowance of capital expenditure for Rs.52,58,956/-, rental income not offered to tax at Rs.8,77,945/-, disallowance of excess depreciation at Rs.3,75,000/- and addition towards dividend stripping income u/s.94

Smt Bertha D'Costa, Cavelossim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

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

ITA 159/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 44ASection 5A

assesse utilised in acquisition, the A.O has wrongly has interpreted the acquisition as revenue expenditure, but it is in the nature of capital expenditure. The assessee as per the accounting principles and policies has disclosed the trawler under fixed assets and claimed depreciation which is not disputed by the Ld.DR