← 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

San Tex Inc., Tirupur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Tirupur

ITA 94/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

expenditure is 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, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating ... 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 an annual business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum payment

Victus Dyeings, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur

ITA 706/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Km Knit Wear, Tirupur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 358/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

expenditure is 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, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating ... 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 an annual business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum payment

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं. / I.T.A. No. 194/Viz/2023 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Visakhapatnam Port Authority V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4Th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan: Aaalv0035C] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्त्््िध/ Assessee Represented By Shri Gvn Hari, Ar : राजसकाप्त्््िध/ Department Represented By Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) : 29.07.2024 सु्वाईसमापहो्ेक््त्ि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : घोषणाक्तार्ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 : आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052850996(1) Dated 15.05.2023 Arising Out Of Order Passed Under

Section 143(3)Section 37

relevant to Assessment year 2014-15. The point of contention of the Ld.AR is that no new asset has been created with enduring benefit and hence it cannot be treated as a capital expenditure deserves consideration. Further the assessee being an entity which was brought into existence by the Major ... funds were drawn from. The broad parameters and tests, which have been laid down by various decisions are that there should be an enduring benefit, which should accrue to the assessee and there should be a creation of a new asset. In the instant case, both these parameters remain unfulfilled