← All Phrases

“revenue expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 373,350 judgments

The decision most relied on for revenue expenditure is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revenue expenditure

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

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.

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.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

Judgments citing revenue expenditure

Nec Technologies India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 6982/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Nec Technologies India P. Ltd., The Addl. Cit, Special Range-6, C.R (Formerly Knows As Nec India P Ltd.), Building, New Delhi 110002 101 To 116, 1St Floor, Splendor Forum, Vs. Plot No. 3, District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccn 3496 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Revenue For : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi Dated 21.05.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That The Order Passed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Ranged (Ld. Cit(A) Ao') Us 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) In The Name Of "Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), The Amalgamating Entity, Which Had Ceased To Exist In The Eyes Of Law, Is Beyond Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Barred By Limitation, Bad In Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed. 3. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Advances (I.E. Input Cenvat Credit) To The Tune Of Rs. 91,81,394/- Which The Appellant Was Constrained To Write Off During The Year Under Consideration As Per The Direction Of Service Tax Department;

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 144C(13)Section 274Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)

Company has written off advances amounting to Rs 9,081,394/-. The amounts were earlier parked in Input service tax receivable account pertaining to revenue expenditure in the nature of rental, clearing and forwarding charges, security expenses etc. however, on service tax audit, such amounts were reversed due to technical ... evident, the input cost is revenue in nature and accordingly service tax paid on such revenue costs is also eligible to be claimed as revenue expenditure. Further, the matter is covered as the Assessee Company has been given relief by Hon'ble DRP panel where adjustment of "Advances written

DCIT, Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 84/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

reduced the interest subsidy from the interest paid on various loans and therefore the interest income and interest expenditure both were treated as revenue expenditure and therefore the interest subsidy on technology upgradation fund was treated by the assessee itself as revenue expenditure. He further referred to the purpose