← 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

Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

fact that the expenditure was actually incurred towards construction of model house which is a capital expense as the assessee will be enjoying enduring benefit from the same over the life of the construction project? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

JCIT(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Casa Grande Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

fact that the expenditure was actually incurred towards construction of model house which is a capital expense as the assessee will be enjoying enduring benefit from the same over the life of the construction project? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bellary vs. M/S. South West Mining Limited, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 457/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

excavation charges fixed by RERC who approves the Transfer Price of Lignite. These expenses do not bring into existence a new capital asset of enduring benefit to Assessee therefore, these expenses cannot be termed as Capital in nature. These expenses are purely Revenue in nature. 5.2 He observed that ... lignite. Thus, the expenditure incurred in respect of a mine owned by third party does not create or bring into existence any asset of enduring benefit to the Assessee Company and hence the expenditure on overburden removal cannot be termed as capital expenditure. The said expenditure incurred