“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

DCIT (It) -3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott International Design & Construction Services, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 195Section 9

like. The service should aimed at and result in transmitting the technical knowledge, etc. so that the payer of services could derive an enduring benefit and utilise the knowledge or know-how in future on its own without the aid of the service provider. By making available technical skills

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

software, programme license, updation of software, etc. It was further submitted that the software purchased have short life span and do not yield any enduring benefit to the assessee and it is used in day to day management of the business of the assessee. The assessee relied on the decision ... nature. 12. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee on the ground that the software acquired provides firstly, the right, and secondly, enduring benefit to the assessee. The AO was of the view that the assessee has the right to exploit the software as per the requirement which

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

imparting and creating of specialized documents requiring use of high skills and technical knowledge. 3. These entities have provided services which do give enduring benefits to the assessee. 4. The assessee is enabled to use the knowledge shared by the abovementioned entities during the course of provision of services

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan

Section 143(3)

order, there is also mention about "resulting in overall improvement in business and the income generating capacity of SCA India, which is a clear enduring benefit" and about the stand that the rendition of these services are "also providing a skill level and relevant training which will be readily available ... personnel of SCA India and thereby a clear enduring benefit is provided". It is also mentioned that "specific support in the form of implementation of SAP project and Project Vinadalloin the form of pre-implementation, testing, post implementation is also provided which is clearly technical in nature and intended

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

cited supra), it has been held that when any expenditure is incurred by an assessee on leasehold premises, even though it may give an enduring benefit, it would not amount to capital expenditure as no capital asset is being created in favour of the assessee. In some of the cases ... works for carrying on the business as per 'brand'specifications. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee is deriving an enduring benefit nor can it be said that any capital asset has been created in favour of the assessee. The quantum of expenditure cannot determine

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3279/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

regular maintenance services which are revenue in nature. However, the AO proceeded to make the disallowance on the ground that the software provides enduring benefit to the assessee and hence to be treated as capital in nature and has also not allowed depreciation stating that the assessee has purchased

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

crore. It was also submitted that the software purchases consisted of application software having a limited/short life and the same does not result in enduring benefit. 5.1 Since the assessee had not deducted tax at source on an amount of Rs.11.42 crores, the AO disallowed the same ... made not only once and for all but also with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit, the same can be properly classified as capital expenditure. At the same time, even though the expenses are once and for all and may give

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144C

same are essentially in the nature of advertising / marketing tools, resulting in Brand- building, which eventhough incurred for sale-promotion certainly create in an enduring benefit of Brand-loyalty over a long-period of time. The expenditures, which are incurred towards the placement of fixed items placed in the showroom

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the same were capital in nature since the same provided enduring benefit to the Assessee. 8.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding the expenditure to be business expenditure of revenue nature incurred for smooth running

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7009/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Contention Of The Learned Dcit That The Appellant Has Not Carried On Any Business Activity During The Year & Hence No Expenses Are Allowable.

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: S.A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

upto the assessee that whether to claim the expenditure in one year or to spread over the said expenditure as per the enduring benefit available with them. For this contention the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Chemicals ... treated all the expenses as capital and disallowed them. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the expenditure could not be considered to have an enduring benefit. The Tribunal held the expenditure revenue in nature and spread it over a period. On appeal held that for the waiver of the loan, payment

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143Section 37

submitted that, the contribution do not constitute any element of personal expenditure, and therefore, not a capital expenditure as there is no enduring benefit out of the said expenditure. Page 6 of 11 6.5 It is submitted that the expenditures are incurred for the welfare of the members

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

obsolescence in software industry, these products shall have short life only. Hence these products, in practical and real sense, cannot be expected to give enduring benefits to the assessee. (v) He submitted that these expenses have been incurred to facilitate extension of existing business of Information Technology carried ... made not only once and for all but also with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit, the same can be properly classified as capital expenditure. At the same time, even though the expenses are once and for all and may give

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

held the view that the expression 'in available only means that the recipient of the service should be in a position to derive an enduring benefit and be in a position to utilize the knowledge or knowhow in future on his own". Here, information technology relating to design, engineering, manufacturing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

such advertisement is telecasted / broadcasted. The ld. AO observed that advertisement film produced could be used again and again and therefore, the assessee derives enduring benefit out of the same. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA

Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider. In other words

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA

Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA

Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)