← 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

Add Advisors Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal

ITA 854/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Delhi International Airport, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

need to analyse what type of expenditure will be covered in section 69C. Expenditure may be in the form of revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. However, the deduction under the ‘act’ will be allowed only for the revenue expenditure and not for the capital expenditure. As per proviso of section ... getting a deduction under this act after it is treated as deemed income should be pertaining to revenue expenditure and not relating to capital expenditure. As judicially decided [ sited infra] that deduction under the act will be allowed only for the revenue expenditure and not to the capital expenditure

Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Delhi vs. DCIT, Exemtion Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4691/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdident & Shri Manish Agarwala.Yr. : 2014-15 Hapur Pilkhuwa Vs. Dcit Exemption Circle, Development Ghaziabad Authority, Room No. 105, Cgo C/O Kapil Goel, Complex, Advocate 1St Floor, Kamla Nehru F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Nagar, Ghaziabad Delhi – 110 085 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aaalh0057L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By Shri Surender Pal Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Passed By The Nfac, New Delhi In Relation To Assessment Year 2014-15 On The Following Grounds:- I) That Orders Of Ao & Ld. First Appellate Authority Respectively Passed U/S. 143(3) & Section 250 Are Both Invalid / Nullity & Both Deserve To Be Quashed / Set Aside For Total Want Of Application Of Mind & Being Passed In Most 1

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(34)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

Fund A/c” to be exempt “Corpus Receipts”. The AO further added Rs. 15,04,302/- being depreciation claimed by the assessee holding that when capital expenditure in acquiring fixed assets has already been allowed in respective years, depreciation cannot be allowed separately. Thus, the AO assessed the total income