← 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

Ramachandran Shivan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2557/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramachandran Shivan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of A-4, No. 18, Saffron Summers, Dr. Income Tax, Narayanaswamy Street, Red Fields, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 045. Coimbatore. [Pan:Areps9702L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Further, he referred to the order of the ld. CIT(A) held that the same is in the nature of capital expenditure, but, not revenue expenditure and drew our attention to page 33 of the impugned order. The ld. AR argued that the both the authorities below did not consider

Art Housing Finance (India) Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7635/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2016-17 Art Housing Finance (India) Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(1), 49, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122015 (Pan: Aagcr4981A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, New Delhi Dated 18.07.2019 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Disallowance Of Commission Expense Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession. 2. Disallowance Of Stamp Duty Expenses Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession. 3. Disallowance Of Trademark Registration Expense Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

stamp duty and solicitors’ fees in connection with the drawing up of the lease deed and claimed deduction of the said amount as revenue expenditure. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the order of the authorities below on this issue. 4.1 We have given our thoughtful consideration ... stamp duty and solicitors’ fees in connection with the drawing up of the lease deed and claimed deduction of the said amount as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the addition in dispute is hereby deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. 5. As regards disallowance of Rs. 39,640/- on account