← 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

Bharti Televentures vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1656 / 2010HC Delhi18 Dec 2012

Bench: The L'Ribunal L'Hc Questions Of Law Sought To Be Urged Are - (T) Whelher Lhe Tnbunul ./All Rrtlo Crror Tn Holdrng Lhal Il,35,05,869 - Parcl B.), Tlrc.I.!.!R'.\5'Cs Cts Tnstallalion Expendrlure By The Assessee Was Coptt.Tl Ttt Ttulitra & Has Lo Be Lrealed As Su Ch I N Usse S.Vnte N L Proce E D T T T G.\') Ftr) Ll/Hether Lhe Lribuncrl/Cll Rttr., Arror Til Hol&Ng Lhat Lhe Sofltt,Are Expenses Lo Lhe Exlant Of I,69,35,669,- Rrtcun'Ecl By Lhe As.Se.S.Sec V'Ere Captlal Rn Nalure') (Iii) Whelher Lhe [Ribunal Wus.Ltrsti/Ied Itt Cfusollov,Ittg The Nght Of Ull The Sunt Of Q,33,76,671 - Crore.S Us Becldcbt Has Bustness Lo.Ts?" 2 The Assessee Inter Alia Engagcs Itsclf In Thc Promotion & Establishing Telecom Services & Allied Activities, Including Mobilc & Cellular Services. Pursuant To Its Main Object It Leased To M/S L-]Harti 'L'Clcnct Certain Plant & Machinery Llharti I]'N 1 395/2006 &. 165612T0 Page I Ol'10 2012:Dhc:7825-Db

appellant urgcs that thc expenditure on installation of <1,35,05,869/- did not confer any capital aiivantage He argued that since no enduring benefit ensued as a rcsult of this expcndituro and a separate lease rental was obtained from the IWs. Bharti 'Ielcnct, thc expcnditure towards installation ... rightly disallowcd by the lower authorities. 5 This Court has considered thc submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The test of "enduring benefit" which was pcrceivcd as the true and applicable test to judge whether an expenditure fell in capital ticld has becn, over the years, considered