← 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

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3753/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraharley – Davidson Motor Vs. Acit, International Tax Company Inc. Circle –2(1)(1), C/O. H-D Motor Company New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.5, Tower A, Level-18, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aacch 6849 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Jaskaran Sarkaria, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

available' clause in the D'TAA. The learned DRP and learned AO erred in concluding that the routine services rendered by the appellant provide enduring benefits to the recipient of services. 5.1 Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee/appellant submitted that learned DRP and learned AO erred in not appreciating that ... cannot be taxed as FTS/FIS in view of the provisions of Article 12 of the India- USA-DTAA. The learned AO has alleged that enduring benefit has been provided by the appellant to the Indian AE. The appellant recovers GIS charges every year from the group affiliates. So, no enduring

DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

facts of this case. Thus it is held that the expenditure of Rs 4,64,08,661 incurred by the appellant has brought enduring benefits to the appellant and not in the nature of current repairs. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected on this ground.” 7. It is this order against ... contention of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs.4,64,08,661/- incurred by the assessee has brought enduring benefits to the assessee and not in the nature of current repairs is not correct. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that the expenditure

Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

facts of this case. Thus it is held that the expenditure of Rs 4,64,08,661 incurred by the appellant has brought enduring benefits to the appellant and not in the nature of current repairs. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected on this ground.” 7. It is this order against ... contention of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs.4,64,08,661/- incurred by the assessee has brought enduring benefits to the assessee and not in the nature of current repairs is not correct. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that the expenditure