← 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

ACIT- Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. First Advantage Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle 4(2)(1) Vs. First Advantage Private Room No. 640/642, 6Th Limited, First Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Interface Building No.7, M.K. Road, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai – 40 Mumbai – 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0706E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Zeenia Handa Respondent By : Nitesh Joshi & Sunil Jhunjhunwala Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 14.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Citia) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 37(1) Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,01,96,568/- Incurred Towards Software License Expenses By Considering The Same As Revenue Expenditure. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Considering The Expenses Incurred By The Assessee On Software License Fee As Revenue Expenditure Instead Of Capital Expenditure, Without Appreciating The Fact That It Is An "Intangible Asset. The Income-Tax Act Clearly Categorizes The "License" As An Intangible Assets For Claiming Depreciation U/S 32 Which Is Based On The Ordinary Meaning Of The Same."

For Appellant: Ms. Zeenia HandaFor Respondent: Nitesh Joshi &
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 37(1)

reproduced at page 2 to 8 of the assessment order by the assessing officer. The assessee company explained that it had not received any enduring benefit from the use of the software. The assessee also submitted that it was not the owner of the software license

The ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Vita Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

same. The order of the AO reveals that reasons for holding so, was that he found that the assessee to have got enduring benefits on account of the said expenditure. The ld.CIT(A), we have noted from para 5.4 of the order, found merit in the contention and explanation ... found favour with the ld.CIT(A) was to effect that neither any asset had come into existence by virtue of this expenditure nor any enduring benefit had accrued to the assessee on account of the said expenditure, since the gas company had utilized this expenditure to lay down pipeline