← 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

Linguanext Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2535/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2535/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Linguanext Technologies Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Private Limited, 401, Galore Tech Park, Behind Maratha Mandir, Bavdhan, Pune- 411021. Pan : Aabcl7322G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Chennai [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 19.11.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed On 29.12.2016 By The Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In Software Development Business. Return

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

needs no adjudication. 8. Ground no.2 relates to disallowance of professional fees paid for drafting application for patents at Rs.15,69,849/- treated as capital expenditure by both the lower authorities. We observe that during the year assessee incurred Rs.15,69,849/- as legal charges for filing patent application. Ledger ... translation expenses for software development. This claim of the assessee has been denied by Ld. Assessing Officer treating it to be a capital expenditure. We 5 observe that the assessee in the business of providing solutions for enterprise application language localization across all industry verticals for which the assessee requires

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,58,74,888/ without appreciating the fact that ESOP expenses are not capital expenditure or a contingent liability but an ascertained revenue expenditure allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.3 Further, the NFAC erred in not following the judicial discipline ... Strides Pharma Science Limited at best, a case of short capital receipts and would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. Accordingly, Ld. AO disallowed the ESOP expenses of Rs 1,58,74,888/- claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act and the disallowance was also confirmed