← 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

Saint Marys School, Mainpuri vs. ADIT, Exepmtion Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1667/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] St. Marys Education Vs Dcit (Exemption), Society, Our Lady Circle, Ghaziabad Fatima Secondary School, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh, U.P-201002. Pan-Aaats4351G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Saint Marys School, Vs Asst. Director Of Opp. Kotwali Mainpuri, Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh-205001. Exemption Circle, Pan-Aaets1727L Ghaziabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vikesh Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.12.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre & 1667/Del/2023 (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) By Cpc Dated 25.11.2019 & 26.05.2020 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019- 20 Respectively.

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- & 1667/Del/2023 1. “Because Amount applied for capital expenditure? 1,82,78,346/- as per Sec 11 or 12 of the Income Tax Act, are allowable expenditure. 2. Because the assessment is not based

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

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

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

deduction which indicated non-application of mind and that claim of assessee required examination as to whether expenditure in question was a revenue or capital expenditure and directed ITO to make a fresh assessment on lines indicated by him - Whether under section 263 substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that