← 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

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward -3(1), Chennai vs. Tsl Techno Services Limited(Ttk Healthcare Private Limited ), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1772/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1772/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tsl Techno Services Limited, Corporate Ward -3(1), V. (Ttk Healthcare Private Ltd), Chennai – 600 034. No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aabct-3312-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32(1)

allowable as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of assessee and held that the payment of logo charges is only a capital expenditure which provides the assessee with enduring benefits for which the actprovides for depreciation. In spite of the binding decision of the Tribunal for earlier years ... factum of payment made by assessee of logo charges @ 2% of the gross sales. The only strife is that per revenue, it is capital expenditure whereas the assessees plea of treating it as a revenue expenditure stands accepted by CIT(A). We find that in exactly the similar circumstances