← All Phrases

“enduring benefit”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 371,056 judgments

The decision most relied on for enduring benefit is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on enduring benefit

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.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

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.

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.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

Judgments citing enduring benefit

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 of 3 | P a g e Rs. 5,50,000/- has been paid for a long term lease and it has enduring benefits. Hence, it should not be allowed as expenditure for the year under consideration. However, it was the contention of the assessee that the amount ... with the owner of the property and the stamp duty payment has no nexus with the period of lease agreement, accordingly, it has no enduring benefits. It was further contended that it is well proved that the expense for stamp duty is a one time cost for the registration

M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with consequences to follow as per the determination above

ITA 3614/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Globus Spirits Ltd., Vs Dcit, F-0, Ground Floor, Circle-10(1), The Mira Corporate Suit, New Delhi. Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, Delhi. Pan: Aaacg2634B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, Advocate & Shri Parveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.11.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.20/15-16 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 20.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle-10(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

have been incurred in the course of running the existing business. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific expense, which is of enduring benefit or has been incurred to acquire any capital asset. Such expenses in respect of on-going business are undisputedly Revenue in nature. Under ... hold that it is only when an enduring advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If advantage of enduring benefit is in the Revenue field it would be on the Revenue account. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 147/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

held that even interest expenditure incurred towards payment of conversion fee paid by the appellant would give enduring benefit in all the subsequent years and has treated the same as capital expenditure. 5.2.1. In 2005 the Chandigarh Administration notified that the business on the industrial site should be the same

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

held that even interest expenditure incurred towards payment of conversion fee paid by the appellant would give enduring benefit in all the subsequent years and has treated the same as capital expenditure. 5.2.1. In 2005 the Chandigarh Administration notified that the business on the industrial site should be the same

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

held that even interest expenditure incurred towards payment of conversion fee paid by the appellant would give enduring benefit in all the subsequent years and has treated the same as capital expenditure. 5.2.1. In 2005 the Chandigarh Administration notified that the business on the industrial site should be the same

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

held that even interest expenditure incurred towards payment of conversion fee paid by the appellant would give enduring benefit in all the subsequent years and has treated the same as capital expenditure. 5.2.1. In 2005 the Chandigarh Administration notified that the business on the industrial site should be the same