← 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

M/S Steel Strips Infrastructures Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 732 /Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Steel Strips Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-II Chandigarh SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS5077J प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A, Ms. Muska Garg, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hea

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muska Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

Loans and Advances" in the balance sheet and the assessee was not engaged in money lending business, the amount was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence not allowable under Section 37(1). The AO distinguished the judicial precedents cited by the assessee as factually different and emphasized that

The DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ram Agri Infra Structure India Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 1733/Ahd/2019 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection no

ITA 1733/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Trivedi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

regards ground no. 2 relating to disallowance of membership fee paid to capital GIHED from the same as capital expenditure, the ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused ... fact by confirming disallowance membership fees of Rs 5,00,000/- paid to GIHED made by AO, treating the same as a capital expenditure. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by confirming disallowance of Rs 250000/- out of sales promotion expense. 4. The learned

Shiv Green Energy Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

ITA 595/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

No.612/RJT/2024 (GojjyaBhikhubhai), and quash the order of the ld. PCIT. 39.Issue No. 3 :Row expenses, in ITA No.612/RJT/2024 (GojjyaBhikhubhai), pertains to revenue expenditure Vs. Capital expenditure. The assessee treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure. We note that assessee is in the business

Ashok Gopaldas Vithlani, Jamkhambhaliya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

ITA 229/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

No.612/RJT/2024 (GojjyaBhikhubhai), and quash the order of the ld. PCIT. 39.Issue No. 3 :Row expenses, in ITA No.612/RJT/2024 (GojjyaBhikhubhai), pertains to revenue expenditure Vs. Capital expenditure. The assessee treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure. We note that assessee is in the business

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh, Cr Building vs. Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation, Maranda, Palampur, Himachal Hp

ITA 390/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 164(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 270A

being adjudicated together. The appellant being a charitable institution can incur expenditure/utilize the receipts for charitable purposes out of revenue expenditure and even capital expenditure. The appellant has used more than 85% of such sources and thus, complied with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The AO while ... details of the application of funds from the sources, accumulation permitted u/s.11(1) of the Act and the application consisting of revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. As per the appellant out of the receipts of Rs.19,23,59,914/-, the appellant has applied the income to the tune of Rs.16

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

payment of Rs.50,50,223/-. Hence, the AO was of view that balance amount of Rs.5,79,19,094/- is to be treated as capital expenditure. In response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed reply stating that software license is valid for only one year ... assessee company was not accepted by the AO and software expenses to the tune of Rs.5,79,19,094/- was treated as capital expenditure. The AO added the same to the total income of the assessee after allowing 25% depreciation. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO passed u/s.147

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electrical Employees Cooperative Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-5(2), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshibharat Heavy Electrical Income Tax Officer बना Employees Cooperative Ltd, 5(2), म/ Hostel No.1, Bhopal Vs. Piplani, Bhopal (Pan: Aaatb3348J) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kekreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)Section 80P(2)(C)

disallowing the revenue expenses on account of repairs of Rolling Shutter and erroneously treating the same as a capital expenditure. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition made

M/S Shishukunj Educational Society, the Shishukunj International School, Gram Jhalaria vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Director General of Income Tax. Aaykar Bhawan

ITA 806/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

Cancellation of registration is penal in nature. The consequences are that, the exemptions enjoyed by the assessee are withdrawn. The capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee trust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1451/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

keep at least one Hundi in front of the Deity for Mooladhana Kanike (Corpus Donation), for utilizing the said Kanike (Corpus Donation) amount for capital expenditure and major periodical and non-recurring expenditure. This is warranted in terms of the custom and usage, prevailing in the Samsthan, from time immemorial

Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6816/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeroyal Canin India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 1401 & 1402, F Wing, 14Th Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts No.185/A, Graham Firth Mumbai-400 020 Compound, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aadcr4417J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriK.M. Gupta a/w Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

almost 10 years, the Assessing Officer should suddenly change his mind and decide to treat the expenditure incurred by the assessee as a capital expenditure.” 10. Following the aggregation approach the intra-group service payments were aggregated along with other international transactions in benchmarking, and the aggregate transaction was found

Shyam Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 stand allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2997/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 13(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 147

case, the CIT Appeal has grossly erred and failed to appreciate that the AO erred on law and facts by taxing the capital expenditure of Rs. 1.49 crore without disputing a single voucher of the various genuine expenditures made by the assessee. The depreciation which is part of revenue expenditure ... failed to appreciate that the AO erred on law and facts by taxing the income to the extent of Rs. 1.49 crore towards capital expenditure which is bad in law in the light of non applicability of section 13(1)(b) and validity of 12AA registration merely on the basis

Gojiya Bhikhubhai, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Id. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Id.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

into assessee's books of accounts. During the year assessee has paid ROW expenses of Rs. 1,36,50,985/-. Thus, these are not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure. 18.However, the ld.Pr.CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and observed that the assessing officer failed to examine these aspects ... account of these expenses, these are purely revenue expenses. Therefore, these expenses should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and should not be treated capital expenditure. The assessee has been doing the same business since last, many years and row expenses were claimed by the assessee in the past

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

into assessee`s books of accounts. During the year assessee has paid ROW expenses of Rs. 1,36,50,985/-. Thus, these are not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure. 18.However, the ld.Pr.CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and observed that the assessing officer failed to examine these aspects ... account of these expenses, these are purely revenue expenses. Therefore, these expenses should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and should not be treated capital expenditure. The assessee has been doing the same business since last, many years and row expenses were claimed by the assessee in the past

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

into assessee`s books of accounts. During the year assessee has paid ROW expenses of Rs. 1,36,50,985/-. Thus, these are not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure. 18.However, the ld.Pr.CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and observed that the assessing officer failed to examine these aspects ... account of these expenses, these are purely revenue expenses. Therefore, these expenses should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and should not be treated capital expenditure. The assessee has been doing the same business since last, many years and row expenses were claimed by the assessee in the past

Bright Land College, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

sources (Fee from Students) 2. Income applied for charitable purposes 2(a) Revenue Expenditure Rs.2,07,59,173/- (Excluding depreciation) 2(b) Capital Expenditure Rs.9,97,106/- Total 2,17,56,279/- Therefore, the percentage of income applied towards charitable purposes during the year was Rs.2,17,56,279/- which ... under income derived from charitable trust, which is a fee collected from a student falling under the head, “income from other sources” i.e. whether capital expenditure could be set off against income from other sources under which the receipts on account of fees had been shown in the income

M/S. Sarju Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi-363641 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 83/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

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 Truba Education Society, Bhopal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 801/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

Section 11Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)

Cancellation of registration is penal in nature. The consequences are that, the exemptions enjoyed by the assessee are withdrawn. The capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee trust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

year-end provision created, was suo moto disallowed by the assessee and the balance provision of Rs. 1.13 crores pertains to the provision for capital expenditure which has not been included in the capital work in progress and not all debited to profit and loss account. Hence, there