← 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

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

hereunder: 37(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed ... receipt. If at all it is to be viewed in terms of expenditure, then, at best, it would be in the nature of a capital expenditure. He supported his view by relying on the order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Addl

The Asst. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

such expenditure was not incurred in the prior year was irrelevant, and the brokerage was not in the nature of a personal expense or capital expenditure, nor was there any double claim of interest and brokerage. It was further contended that the nomenclature of “brokerage” for monthly commission was immaterial ... held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining the loan amount could not be treated as capital expenditure because its direct nexus was with acquiring loan and not with acquiring of any asset. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO of the brokerage expenses is directed

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

such expenditure was not incurred in the prior year was irrelevant, and the brokerage was not in the nature of a personal expense or capital expenditure, nor was there any double claim of interest and brokerage. It was further contended that the nomenclature of “brokerage” for monthly commission was immaterial ... held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining the loan amount could not be treated as capital expenditure because its direct nexus was with acquiring loan and not with acquiring of any asset. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO of the brokerage expenses is directed

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

such expenditure was not incurred in the prior year was irrelevant, and the brokerage was not in the nature of a personal expense or capital expenditure, nor was there any double claim of interest and brokerage. It was further contended that the nomenclature of "brokerage" for monthly commission was immaterial ... held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining the loan amount could not be treated as capital expenditure because its direct nexus was with acquiring loan and not with acquiring of any asset. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO of the brokerage expenses is directed

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

such expenditure was not incurred in the prior year was irrelevant, and the brokerage was not in the nature of a personal expense or capital expenditure, nor was there any double claim of interest and brokerage. It was further contended that the nomenclature of "brokerage" for monthly commission was immaterial ... held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining the loan amount could not be treated as capital expenditure because its direct nexus was with acquiring loan and not with acquiring of any asset. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO of the brokerage expenses is directed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

approved facility, whether Revenue or capitalised are fully allowable u/s 35(1)(i)/35(1)(iv). 5. Weighted Deduction R&D of Capital Expenditure u/s 35(2AB) certified by DSIR but not allowed by NFAC - Rs. 40,21,77,735: 5.1. The CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not granting deduction ... being 150% of Capital expenditure of Rs. 26,81,18,490) which has been certified by the DSIR in Form 3CL dated 05.04.2023. 5.2. The Appellant having received Form 3CL dated 05.04.2023 ought to be allowed a total weighted deduction of Rs. 1,72,03,84,500 (being

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

approved facility, whether Revenue or capitalised are fully allowable u/s 35(1)(i)/35(1)(iv). 5. Weighted Deduction R&D of Capital Expenditure u/s 35(2AB) certified by DSIR but not allowed by NFAC - Rs.40,21,77,735: 5. 1. The CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not granting deduction ... being 150% of Capital expenditure of Rs. 26,81,18,490) which has been certified by the DSIR in Form 3CL dated 05.04.2023. 5. 2. The Appellant having received Form 3CL dated 05.04.2023 ought to be allowed a total weighted deduction of Rs.1,72,03,84,500 (being

Vyapti Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. National E- Assessment Centre Delhi (Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-3(2)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 835/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, AR & Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

land, seeking sanctions from the concerned authorities, developing the land in accordance with those sanctions, all types of expenses incurred on construction, i.e. capital expenditure incurred for getting pre-launch or post launch booking including were debited to work-in-progress. Thus, neither advances received on booking of flats were

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

accorded approval for weighted deduction by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) effective November 23, 2011. The eligible R&D revenue and capital expenditure on a standalone basis are Rs 261 crore and Nil respectively for the year ended March 31, 2014 and Rs. 247 crore ... expenditure 28 ITA.No.916/Hyd./2024 discussed above for fiscal years 2014 and 2013 is as follows: 2014 2013 Revenue expenditure 873 907 Capital expenditure = 6 Total 873 913 R&D expenditure / total revenue 2.0% 2.5% %, (e) It is also apparent from page No.326 of PB-II that the company

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Patto Plaza vs. Esteem Industries Private Limited, Plot

ITA 253/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Mahendra Sanghvi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 253Section 44A

addition of representing modvat/cenvat credit attributable to closing inventory u/s 145A of the Act and (ii) disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹1,94,57,703/- relating to technical know-how. Aggrieved by the first addition, the assessee filed an appeal which the Ld. NFAC allowed by reversing the alleged addition

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

reference, the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) is as under: "6. The AO held that the appellant has claimed 100% deduction towards capital expenditure at time of acquiring capital assets, therefore, the claim of double deduction on account of depreciation of Rs.8,13,513/- was disallowed

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

reference, the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) is as under: "6. The AO held that the appellant has claimed 100% deduction towards capital expenditure at time of acquiring capital assets, therefore, the claim of double deduction on account of depreciation of Rs.8,13,513/- was disallowed

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Pokharna Educational Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1244/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 10(230)(iad)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 57

bills or vouchers were filed to substantiate the so-called expenditure of Rs.64 lakhs. Even otherwise, apparently, expenditure on building construction is a Capital Expenditure and cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 57 of the Act. Assessee has claimed Rs.64 lakhs deduction u/s 57 of the Act which is blatantly ... person belonging to the family of an employee in the event of his death ; (iii) any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income; (iv) in the case of income

The Congregation of Brothers of St.Michael, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above order

ITA 1122/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1122/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 The Congregation Of The Brothers Of Assistant Commissioner Of St.Michel, Income Tax (Exemptions), P.B.No.6 Bishop House, Coimbatore Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 001. [Pan: Aaatt3652K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 143(1)

total application towards charitable activities to Rs.3,70,50,099/-. However, in the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 05.12.2024, the AO, CPC has disallowed capital expenditure of Rs.2,76,33,284/- for the reason that the assessee has not filed Form 10B (Audit Report). On further appeal ... been filed on 12.10.2023 vide acknowledgment Number:403951980121023. If the contentiona of the assessee is found true then AO is directed to allow the capital expenditure of Rs.2,76,33,284/- as an application of funds towards charitable activities. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Indus Valley Partners (India) Private Limited, Noida vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(1), Delhi

ITA 4758/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(2)Section 2Section 234BSection 274

circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO erred in treating the expenditure of INR 2,01,20,502 as a capital expenditure without appreciating that the same is in the re of license fee and upgradation of software. 4. That on the facts and circumstances ... order to divert its capital expenses and to claim the same as revenue. With the above observation, he treated the above software expenses as capital expenditure and proceeded to make the addition of Rs.4,11,37,160/-. 6. Further the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed net loss from

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)

claimed by the assessee in respect of capital dredging. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee has incurred a certain capital expenditure on capital dredging of the Port to facilitate free movements of Ships and hence to be considered as Plant & Machinery and accordingly the assessee is entitled for depreciation ... buildings to carry on the business activity of the assessee and would be building within the meaning of section 32 of the Act. The capital expenditure incurred thereon is admissible to depreciation as per the provisions of the Act read with Rules in the Appendix.” Page. No 6 I.T.A.No

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)

claimed by the assessee in respect of capital dredging. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee has incurred a certain capital expenditure on capital dredging of the Port to facilitate free movements of Ships and hence to be considered as Plant & Machinery and accordingly the assessee is entitled for depreciation ... buildings to carry on the business activity of the assessee and would be building within the meaning of section 32 of the Act. The capital expenditure incurred thereon is admissible to depreciation as per the provisions of the Act read with Rules in the Appendix.” Page. No 6 I.T.A.No

Alnesh Akil Somji, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

ground of necessity and in order indirectly to facilitate the making or earning of the income. (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income (income chargeable under the head "income from other sources'). This ... computed after deductions are made and one of the deductions is allowed in respect of an expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. 9. In the first decision cited before