← All Phrases

“enduring benefit”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 371,056 judgments

DCIT, GURGAON vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3202/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

that no asset was created and the assessee did not get any enduring benefit. The assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152. 4. For Assessment Year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3773/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

that no asset was created and the assessee did not get any enduring benefit. The assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152. 4. For Assessment Year

M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3626/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

that no asset was created and the assessee did not get any enduring benefit. The assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152. 4. For Assessment Year

M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3625/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 14A

that no asset was created and the assessee did not get any enduring benefit. The assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152. 4. For Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ASIA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 497/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 268A

made on account of capitalization of ropeway expenses ignoring the material aspect that the expenditure incurred was capital in nature and was giving enduring benefit to the Assessee. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the plea of the assessee that the ropeway cable change in every

HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,INDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4090/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

from HUDA. This right of dominion to the exclusion of others has been acquired by incurring certain cost. This is an intangible asset giving enduring benefit to the assessee for the period of concession. Hence, these rights should be considered as intangible asset. Page 6 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 ... states that in the BOT arrangement, assessee is entitled to recover the cost incurred on development of such project which brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect toll during the period of agreement and hence it should be considered capital in nature

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. M/S HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3599/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

from HUDA. This right of dominion to the exclusion of others has been acquired by incurring certain cost. This is an intangible asset giving enduring benefit to the assessee for the period of concession. Hence, these rights should be considered as intangible asset. Page 6 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 ... states that in the BOT arrangement, assessee is entitled to recover the cost incurred on development of such project which brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect toll during the period of agreement and hence it should be considered capital in nature

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

technical knowledge was\ntransferred to the customers to make them self-sufficient/ reliant in using the\ntechnology and that the customer had derived an enduring benefit and utilised the\nknowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider.\nThe relevant findings ... like. The service should be aimed at and result in\ntransmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the\nservice could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge\nor know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service\nprovider. In other words

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that the expenditure resulted in creation of intangible asset and enduring benefit to the business and accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. After allowing depreciation, addition of Rs. 79,43,19,538/- was made. Accordingly, the total income was assessed ... company as Revenue expenditure although the assessee has incurred the expenses of an intangible asset under development and the same is developed for the enduring benefit of the business of the assessee company. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is deleting

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

nclaimed as revenue expenditure.\nThe Assessing Officer held that the expenditure resulted in\ncreation of intangible asset and enduring benefit to the business\nand accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. After\nallowing depreciation, addition of Rs. 79,43,19,538/- was made.\nAccordingly, the total income was assessed ... company as Revenue expenditure although the assessee\nhas incurred the expenses of an intangible asset under development\nand the same is developed for the enduring benefit of the business of\nthe assessee company.\n4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) is deleting

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

right to the Appellant. The appellant stated that the AO ought to have considered the fact payment of Compensation resulted in Capital Expenditure of enduring benefit, in the form of a building that was constructed by the Appellant, which has been capitalized along with cost of the building. The appellant

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

towards the execution of the lease deed is a capital expenditure being the acquisition of capital asset u/sec2(14) of the Act and having enduring benefit and amortised the amount over a period of 10 years and allowed stamp duty and registration charges of mining lease to the extent ... assessee has paid the stamp duty and registration charges and obtained the mining lease for 20 years period and such expenditure has a enduring benefit and cannot be treated as revenue expenditure as legal expenses and the Ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 6 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7063/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2023-24
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

replacement of parts and components is considered\nrevenue expenditure and is charged to the Profit & Loss account.\nv. Only expenses that result in an enduring benefit or increase in the asset's\ncapacity can be capitalized as per Section 32.\nb. Error in Depreciation Calculation\ni. The assessee mistakenly added

ARYAN FLAVOURS,NOIDA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ita No. 369 /Pat/2025 ( Asstt. Year: 2018-19) Aryan Flavours Vs Dc/Ac Circle-1, Patna B-8, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Buddha Nagar, Noida, Noida, Up- 201301 Patna. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa3538J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)

whole and the same in no way increased the accommodation or earning capacity of the building in that sense, no new advantage of enduring benefit had been brought into existence. The repairs also could not be regarded as heavy structure / repairs. Simply because of repairs, the life of the building ... nature of revenue expenditure. Thus, in view of the judicial trend, it is humbly submitted that he quantum of expenditure and its enduring benefits immaterial to decide whether the expenditure is enforcement etc have been made to the existing building ad as such the expenditure is revenue in nature

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 558/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. /It(Ss)A No.19/Rpr/2025 Co No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited 8Th Floor, Cbd Complex, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur-492 018 Pan: Aadcm4810C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade. If what is got rid of by a lump sum payment is annual business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum payment should

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM.OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

project was ultimately abandoned and no capital asset came into existence. Therefore, the expenditure written off does not result in acquisition of any enduring benefit. Respectfully following the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the write-off of Rs.47,93,370/- on account

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6486/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

project was ultimately abandoned and no capital asset came into existence. Therefore, the expenditure written off does not result in acquisition of any enduring benefit. Respectfully following the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the write-off of Rs.47,93,370/- on account

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6485/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

project was ultimately abandoned and no capital asset came into existence. Therefore, the expenditure written off does not result in acquisition of any enduring benefit. Respectfully following the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the write-off of Rs.47,93,370/- on account

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

bolstered up clearly that, mining operations i.e., winning of minerals is a lawful right created under the provisions of MA & MMDRA which endows an enduring benefit over a certain period and conveys various rights including right to transfer. Such right is not a commodity to be traded as inventory ... their Hon’ble lordships in ‘Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs CIT’ [1961, 43 ITR 460 (AP)] have also echoed that, renewal of mining-lease endows enduring benefit for a term and confers various rights hence is not a commodity but an asset capable of generating commodity to be sold in mining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LIMITED, ANKLESHWAR

ITA 2678/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

Machineries without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the said expenses were of recurring nature which do not provide enduring benefit to the plant and machinery. (iv) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time ... Machineries without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the said expenses were of recurring nature which do not provide enduring benefit to the plant and machinery. (iv) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time

Showing 1–20 of 1,056 · Page 1 of 53

...