← 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

Alaknanda Associates, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 5452/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2018-19 Ms. Alaknanda Associates, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 00, Shivam Complex, Ward-1(1)(4), Nateshpuram, Kanker-Khera, Meerut Meerut - 250001 Pan No. Aaofm3000C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

nature of expenditure prescribed in Sections 30 to 36 of the Act and also not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee. Thus, in view of such mandate of law, the deduction of expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) would

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal Nutan Park, Shanti Niketan Society Mororji Desai Marg Bilimora Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.CIT(Exemption), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 11/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CPC Banglore has erred in diallowing Capital Expenditure incurred towards addition to the fixed assets of Rs. 5,28,577/- which is allowed ... otherwise also allowed against income. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CPC Banglore has erred in diallowing Capital Expenditure incurred towards addition to the fixed assets of Rs. 5,28,577/- which is allowed

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal Nutan Park, Shanti Niketan Society, Morarji Desai Marg Bilimora Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.CIT(Exemption), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 10/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CPC Banglore has erred in diallowing Capital Expenditure incurred towards addition to the fixed assets of Rs. 5,28,577/- which is allowed ... otherwise also allowed against income. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CPC Banglore has erred in diallowing Capital Expenditure incurred towards addition to the fixed assets of Rs. 5,28,577/- which is allowed

Shashi Krishna Educational Avam Welfare Society, Patna vs. AO, Patna

ITA 428/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

appreciate that the appellant had in fact applied Rs. 1,06,33,000/- towards revenue expenditure, further applied Rs. 13,50,900/- towards capital expenditure (excluding borrowed funds), and set apart Rs. 7,92,441/- (within the 15% permissible limit u/s U(l)(a)) for charitable purposes, and therefore

Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

holding that the appellant was not entitled to the weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research u/s 35(2AB) being non-eligible R&D capital expenditure merely on the basis of Form no. 3CL, issued by the DSIR, Delhi, without his own findings and verification of the facts. Further ... incurred by it in terms of the provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had claimed weighted deduction on account of capital expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.13,12,58,435/-. and revenue expenditure incurred on R&D amounting to Rs.3,79,28,52,702/-. Reducing

Jainacharya Devendra Muni Shikshan and Chikitsa Shodh Sansthan, Udaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / ITO, Exemption Ward, Udaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 256/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blejainacharya Devendra Muni Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Shikshan & Chikitsa Shodh Exemption Ward Sansthan Udaipur - 313001 N H 8-1 (4) Bhuwana Udaipur (Raj) - 313001 Pan No. Aaatj 5263 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Visakhapatnam [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 05.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs. 24,75,863/- In Corpus Fund Of Rs. 6,09,448/- Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250

ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Visakhapatnam [hereinafter referred to as “the JCIT appeal”] dated 05.03.2025 with respect to assessment year 2016-17 challenging therein disallowance of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 24,75,863/- in corpus fund of Rs. 6,09,448/- without appreciating the merits of the case. 2. Having heard ... assessee has submitted that while uploading the return, mistake was occurred in mentioning the figure. The correct position was that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure of Rs. 24,75,863/- during the year and only surplus left is Rs. 9,71,916/- i.e. 10.83%. 3. The AO being

Shree Tarak Guru Jain Granthalya, Udaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru / ITO (Exemption), Udaipur

ITA 22/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 13(9)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(A)

belated return which the department has not held to be defect return u/s 139(9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return

Shree Tarak Guru Jain Granthalya, Udaipur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru / ITO (Exemption), Udaipur

ITA 21/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 13(9)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(A)

belated return which the department has not held to be defect return u/s 139(9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

Revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the AO 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

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

whether expenditure incurred for construction of toll road is a deferred expenditure which can be amortized or not, or (ii) whether it is a capital expenditure in the nature of intangible asset falling within the purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, on the basis of one possible view, has treated the cost incurred for development of toll road as capital expenditure and the same has been treated as intangible asset in the books of accounts and depreciation has been claimed under Section

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

addition made on account of disallowance of legal fees of Rs. 89,18,266/- by treating these expenses as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was right in upholding that cash system of accounting followed ... revenue stands rejected in terms of our aforesaid observations. Ground No.2:- Regarding disallowance of legal fee by treating the same as Capital Expenditure instead of Revenue Expenditure 16. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has examined the Professional and Legal Fee expenditure incurred by the assessee out of which

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

addition made on account of disallowance of legal fees of Rs. 89,18,266/- by treating these expenses as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was right in upholding that cash system of accounting followed ... revenue stands rejected in terms of our aforesaid observations. Ground No.2:- Regarding disallowance of legal fee by treating the same as Capital Expenditure instead of Revenue Expenditure 16. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has examined the Professional and Legal Fee expenditure incurred by the assessee out of which

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

addition made on account of disallowance of legal fees of Rs. 89,18,266/- by treating these expenses as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was right in upholding that cash system of accounting followed ... revenue stands rejected in terms of our aforesaid observations. Ground No.2:- Regarding disallowance of legal fee by treating the same as Capital Expenditure instead of Revenue Expenditure 16. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has examined the Professional and Legal Fee expenditure incurred by the assessee out of which

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

addition made on account of disallowance of legal fees of Rs. 89,18,266/- by treating these expenses as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was right in upholding that cash system of accounting followed ... revenue stands rejected in terms of our aforesaid observations. Ground No.2:- Regarding disallowance of legal fee by treating the same as Capital Expenditure instead of Revenue Expenditure 16. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has examined the Professional and Legal Fee expenditure incurred by the assessee out of which

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

addition made on account of disallowance of legal fees of Rs. 89,18,266/- by treating these expenses as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was right in upholding that cash system of accounting followed ... revenue stands rejected in terms of our aforesaid observations. Ground No.2:- Regarding disallowance of legal fee by treating the same as Capital Expenditure instead of Revenue Expenditure 16. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has examined the Professional and Legal Fee expenditure incurred by the assessee out of which

Axa Parenterals Limited, Up vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

having been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses. The AO did not agree to the submissions of the assessee observing that the assessee was habitual in making late payment spread

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

respect of cost of dies and moulds put to use during the year treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure. In doing so, the learned PCIT erred in the following respects: 27. In merely relying on the assessment order for the earlier year wherein similar disallowance was made ... ground that dies and moulds are in the nature of capital expenditure; 28. In not appreciating the fact that since the dies and moulds represented a part of the appellant's plant and machinery, the dies and moulds purchased in the past had been capitalised and therefore the cost

Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 1179/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 68

paid for increase in share capital authorised capital and stamp duty. The AO disallowed the said amount as it is in the nature of capital expenditure. 11.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that AO had made a disallowance of Rs.5,72,481/- being the ROC charges treating ... capital and the balance was towards filing charges. Thus, it is evident that an amount of Rs.4,60,131/- is in the nature of capital expenditure as held by various courts. Therefore, the action of the AO is upheld. The AO is directed to restrict the addition made to Rs.4

Jan Abhivyakti Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Raipur vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5565/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2024-25] Jan Abhivyankti Samajik Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vikas Sanstha, Lig-1361, (Central)-2, Room No.341, E-2, Sector-8, Housing Board Vs 2Nd Floor, Ara Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 Pan:Aabaj7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 12ASection 133A

containing the objects for which the Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha was set up along with copy of registration with the relevant authorities.  Details of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure incurred for various A.Ys. as mentioned above.  Copies of Form 10 and Form 10B in respect of funds accumulated ... expenditure incurred for various assessment years. In response, the assessee only submitted copy of Form 10B which is not supported with the details of capital expenditure and copy of accounts and documentary evidence. Further, no activity was specified for which accumulated funds were utilized.” 18. Thus it appears that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Lucknow vs. U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 209/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 14ASection 263Section 32

Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Because the learned first appellate authority ought to have allowed depreciation on the amount of Repairs & Maintenance treated as capital expenditure in AY 2004-05, as in assessment for A.Y. 2004-05 the ITA Nos.161 & 174/LKW/2019 209/LKW/2019 Page 3 of 6 depreciation on such amount ... treated as capital expenditure was allowed and depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which