← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 200% under section 35(2AB) of the Act for ₹.9,29,85,000/-, out of which the capital expenditure is ₹.17,84,000/- (being 100%) and the revenue expenditure is ₹.4,47,08,500 (being 100%). Since, vide letter dated 10.07.2012, the DSIR has certified ... capital expenditure of ₹.17,84,000/- and revenue expenditure of ₹.3,67,27,000/- as eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess claim of weighted deduction on revenue expenditure for ₹.79,81,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Taramani Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2889/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

heard both the parties, we note that the claim of expenditure incurred towards ESOP was disallowed by the Assessing Officer treating the same as capital expenditure. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years in assessee’s own case, deleted the addition

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Ltu 1 Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

heard both the parties, we note that the claim of expenditure incurred towards ESOP was disallowed by the Assessing Officer treating the same as capital expenditure. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years in assessee’s own case, deleted the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

heard both the parties, we note that the claim of expenditure incurred towards ESOP was disallowed by the Assessing Officer treating the same as capital expenditure. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years in assessee’s own case, deleted the addition

DCIT, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd, Mansa

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 232/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm (Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.232/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-1 M/S Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Bhatinda -151 001 Village Banawala, Mansa Talwandi Sabo Road, Punjab. 151302. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-6775-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Neeraj Jain, Sh. Deepesh Jain, (Advs) & Ms Aditi Garg, Ca – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22-03-2024 In The Matter Of Impugned [Enalty Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Vide Its Order Dated 31-01-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Sh. Deepesh Jain, (Advs) &For Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

plant at Mansa. The assessee did not reflect any revenue but it reflected gross expenditure of Rs.46.88 Crores out of which the assessee disallowed capital expenditure of Rs.41.80 Crores in computation of income and accordingly, claimed loss of Rs.5.08 Crores. Since there was no commercial operation, Ld. AO held that

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

nature and treating the activities of the assessee trust being carried out in a commercial manner and for profits. d. Withdrawal of Claim of Capital Expenditure being application of Income, and withdrawal total claim of application of income under Section 11 for the year under consideration. e. Treating tournament receipts ... Gahunje Stadium Project as revenue receipts and liable for tax. c. Withdrawing the claim of Rs.166,13,62,685/- being Capital Expenditure claimed as Application of Income and claim of deficit of Rs.155,55,73,714/- (180,21,27,096 - 24,65,53,382). d. Added tournament receipts from BCCI

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1387/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

nature and treating the activities of the assessee trust being carried out in a commercial manner and for profits. d. Withdrawal of Claim of Capital Expenditure being application of Income, and withdrawal total claim of application of income under Section 11 for the year under consideration. e. Treating tournament receipts ... Gahunje Stadium Project as revenue receipts and liable for tax. c. Withdrawing the claim of Rs.166,13,62,685/- being Capital Expenditure claimed as Application of Income and claim of deficit of Rs.155,55,73,714/- (180,21,27,096 - 24,65,53,382). d. Added tournament receipts from BCCI