← 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

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं. / I.T.A. No. 194/Viz/2023 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Visakhapatnam Port Authority V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4Th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan: Aaalv0035C] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्त्््िध/ Assessee Represented By Shri Gvn Hari, Ar : राजसकाप्त्््िध/ Department Represented By Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) : 29.07.2024 सु्वाईसमापहो्ेक््त्ि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : घोषणाक्तार्ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 : आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052850996(1) Dated 15.05.2023 Arising Out Of Order Passed Under

Section 143(3)Section 37

short “Ld. DR”] submitted that the expenditure incurred for the Techno Economic Feasibility Report is capital in nature and should be considered as a capital expenditure. Ld. DR further submitted that assessee was planning to setting up of a new Port and therefore it constitutes setting ... project and hence it has to be treated as a capital expenditure. Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ICS Systems (P.) Ltd., v. CIT [(2019) 102 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi)]. Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 194/VIZ/2023 VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

learned CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed in allowing the excess claim of capital expenditure even though it was not matching with audited books of accounts of the assessee. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to give opportunity to Assessing ... Form No.10 set apart U/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act alleging accumulation not specified. Rs.2,24,00,000 b) Shortfall in application towards Capital Expenditure alleging as excess application Rs.1,99,54,535 It is apparent from the impugned Assessment order that the facts and evidences brought on record

M/S Amalgamations Valeo Clutch Private Limited, Kanchi8Puram vs. DCIT, Taxpayer Unit--1, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.386/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Amalgamations Valeo Clutch Dcit Private Limited Large Tax Payer Unit-1 बनाम/ B9, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. Vaippur A Block Village, Vs. Sriperumbudur, S.O. Oragadam Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9038-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.Prasanna (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.Prasanna (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

paying shared service cost, the assessee company incurred losses. When services cost was shared, the assessee company and VIPL would have shared the capital expenditure of such shared cost by way of creating administrative office space, equipment etc. On verification, it was noticed that no such capital expenditure was incurred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle-1, (Exemptions), Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissioner Of Bangalore Development Authority, Income Tax, Circle-1, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark (Exemptions), Bengaluru Vs. West, Seshadripuram S.O., Bangalore North, Bangalore-560020 Pan – Aaalb0060D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Sri. D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Dated 8.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Statutory Body Under The Government Of Karnataka & They Are Regular In Filing Their Return Of Income. The Assessee Also Got Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 1.04.2003. During The Assessment Year 2008-09, The Assessee Filed Their Original Return Of Income On 25.09.2008 & Claimed Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Also Filed The Audit Report Alongwith The Return Of Income. The Return Was Processed & The Ao Accepted The Same. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice Was Issued On Various Dates & The Assessee Also Appeared & Filed Their

For Appellant: Sri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Sri. D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

borrowed from Bank as application of income in the current financial year by ignoring the fact that the assessee itself had admitted that the capital expenditure on infrastructure project for which the loan was borrowed, had been claimed as application for the earlier assessment years ... appellant had pointed out that the assessee had already utilized the loan amount towards the application for charitable purposes and claimed the same as capital expenditure and therefore, the repayment of loan would not be eligible to be treated as application for charitable purposes and therefore