← 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

M/S. Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., Vs. Ito, 100-A, Cycle Market, Ward-12(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaci8493G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Not Allowing Deduction For Rs.21,00,000/- Being The Amount Of Expenditure Incurred On Research & Development. The Action Being Arbitrary, Erroneous & Unlawful Must Be Quashed With Directions For Relief.” 3. This Appeal Was Earlier, Dismissed By The Tribunal For Want Of Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.604/Del/2019, Order Dated 5Th March, 2021, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

made to increase the knowledge and skill of the personnel and for tentative development. This proves that the expense had the nature of creating enduring benefit. Hence, the expense squarely falls under capital in nature. Further, the assessee has not justified its claim that the expense qualifies as revenue ... that the assessee has not filed the details. He submitted that the AO, in the assessment order has mentioned that the expenses are of enduring benefit. However, every enduring benefit cannot be treated as capital in nature and in certain cases, it has to be treated as revenue in nature