← 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

Gates Wears, Tiruppur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tiruppur

ITA 1014/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Victus Dyeings, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tirupur 641 601. The Assistant Commissioner Of [Pan: Aacfv4420D] Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Tirupur. Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) San Tex Inc., 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

San Tex Inc., Tirupur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Tirupur

ITA 94/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

leasehold land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure by invoking Explanation 1 to section 32 of the Act by holding it is a capital expenditure by allowing depreciation. The ld. CIT(A), by following the orders of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, held the same as revenue ... constructed building thereon. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of CIT v. Nellaiappan (supra), held that the said expenditure as capital expenditure as the assessee has taken the building on lease and in the case of CIT v. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra

Victus Dyeings, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur

ITA 706/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Km Knit Wear, Tirupur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 358/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

leasehold land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure by invoking Explanation 1 to section 32 of the Act by holding it is a capital expenditure by allowing depreciation. The ld. CIT(A), by following the orders of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, held the same as revenue ... constructed building thereon. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of CIT v. Nellaiappan (supra), held that the said expenditure as capital expenditure as the assessee has taken the building on lease and in the case of CIT v. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

further find that the expenditure of Rs.5,59,740/- towards professional fee of architect for guest house renovation was treated as capital expenditure and disallowed accordingly, but in a situation like this, question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise. In this regard