“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 Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

intangible asset is not treated as an asset in the books of accounts of the assessee. (iv) The assessee is not getting any enduring benefit out of the intangible asset. B. (i) During the financial year 2015-16, M/s Gera Realty India Private Limited (GRIPL) had amalgamated with the assessee ... cannot be created in the books of accounts as balancing figure in the process of amalgamation. Goodwill is something related to specific advantage or enduring benefits amalgamating company receives in the process of amalgamation. As per 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, it is clear that

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

applied Honda Siel to the current facts of the case without analysing differences in royalty agreements, considering its non-exclusive nature, examining absence of enduring benefit and evaluating periodic renewal. The issue is highly debatable, and a debatable issue cannot be revised u/s.263 of the Act. Further, the additions

Asia Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

ITA 6353/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

structure and maintaining it in a functional and habitable condition. It neither brings into existence a new asset nor confers on the assessee an enduring benefit in the capital sense. In law, the test of "enduring benefit" must be applied pragmatically and not mechanically; expenditure which merely preserves or restores

Asia Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

ITA 4529/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Alex Grinders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the Ld

ITA 2334/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2013-14 Alex Grinders Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 32, Diamond Queen, Aayakar Bhavan, West Avenue, Santacruz, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400054. New Marine Lines, Pan : Aaaca3664K Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld. Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

assessee company. Thus the payment made that to in the 4 end of the financial year do not entail any business purpose nor any enduring benefit has been accrued to the assessee company because already a chunk of employees had been retrenched thereby leaving no scope of further negotiation ... assessee company, that the payment made towards the fag end of the financial year do not entail any business purpose nor any enduring benefit has been accrued to the assessee company as a chunk of employees had been retrenched thereby leaving no scope of further negotiation and the explanation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Bahwan Cybertek Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.62/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Vs. No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) It(Tp) A No.: 22/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri. Ar. V. Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The

For Respondent: Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

merely incurred towards purchases of consumables. vi. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to furnish the real nature of the said expenses which give enduring benefit to the Assessee and thus capital in nature. vii. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing ... Ld.DR strongly relied on the findings of the AO that the said expenses were incurred for creating an intangible assets which has enduring benefits to the assessee. The Ld. DR drew our attention to Page 458 to 467 of the paper book filed before us wherein the contract entered into

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Rishiraj Singh, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1073/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Mohd. Azharuddin, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

various toll plazas of the respondent. b. It is pertinent to note that neither any asset has been created through such expenses nor any enduring benefit has accrued to the respondent by way of incurring such expenditure. c. Further, the toll equipments expenditure have been incurred on replacement of existing

Infres Methodex Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Block-B-1, Plot No.D-7, Circle-12(1) Mohan Co-Operative Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aabci1964R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rahul Kant, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-4/10728/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2017, Declaring Total Income At Inr 22,86,60,530/-. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Marketing Of Currency Counting Machines & Verifiers & Paper Shredders Etc. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Has Made The Disallowance Of Inr 22,91,385/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Besides This, The Disallowance Of Inr 14,82,901/- Is Made Out Of Payment Made To Clubs & Inr 31,57,057/- Were Disallowed Out Of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses. The Ao Also Made Addition Of Inr 2,02,76,999/- On Account Of Custom Duty Paid By Holding The Same As Unexplained Expenditure.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 69C

already allowed relief for the expenses which are revenue in nature. One time entry fee paid for corporate membership is capital in nature having enduring benefits and therefore, the same should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. He prayed accordingly. 11. Regarding excise duty, Ld. Sr.DR submits that the matter

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

being an intangible is covered under the ambit of Sec 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the said acquisition gave an enduring benefit to the business of the company. Further, the assessee company had actually paid the consideration to the vendee in compliance with the Accounting Standard

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

considered observation that buyback of own shares by a company would neither result in creation of any capital asset nor would result in any enduring benefit to the company and accordingly the application of the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to such cases is not warranted ... capital expenditure • Buyback of its own shares by a Company would neither result in creation of any new capital asset nor would provide enduring benefits to the Company. • The above position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bayer Vapi

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

Mvm Industries, Baddi vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 639/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 639/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mvm Industries, Vs The Dcit/Acit, Plot No. 80, Depip Phase-1, Parwanoo. Jharmajri, Baddi, Solan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aasfm2234L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate For Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Hybrid Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 80I

assumptions of the AO are misplaced. The software have very short life and they require continuous upgradation. It will not grant any A.Y.2017-18 3 enduring benefit to the assessee, hence it is to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of Revenue Authorities and direct

Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1425/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

invoices, the AO noted that the items included software licenses, validation modules, and data management tools which, according to him, were of enduring benefit and capital in nature. The assessee contended that these expenses were incurred for product-related manufacturing activities essential for maintaining quality and efficiency, without creating ... regulatory compliance and enhance export opportunities, and therefore, they were allowable as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that such expenditure conferred an enduring benefit upon the assessee, as the US-FDA approval would remain effective over several years and enable sustained export operations. The AO referred to similar

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Race Course, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol Panchmahal

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1423/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

result of acquisition of time share weeks, which resulted in removal of encumbrances over the resort property owned by assessee and had an enduring benefit to them, the cost was capitalised as a cost of resort property, i.e. in the land and building. Therefore, the inventory amounting to Rs.22.28 crores

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

assessee claimed the customer acquisition cost as revenue expenditure as the same were incurred in normal course of business, which did not result any enduring benefit. Whereas the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) held the customer acquisition cost as capital expenditure and disallowed the same as under: “6. Customer Acquisition cost ... assessee is acquiring business and commercial rights of enduring nature. Therefore, the acquisition cost paid by the assessee is towards acquiring an asset of enduring benefit. In case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while upholding the view of the Income-tax Appellate

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Known As Oriental Bank of Commerce), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3161/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(2)(v)

less than 180 days allowed by the Assessing Officer that the erection and fixtures mentioned above have longer life than one year and of enduring benefit to the assessee company as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation ... expenses incurred are as 'capital in nature without appreciating the facts that these expenses are in the nature of capital and result in enduring benefit. 2 | P a g e 6. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Lko, Lucknow vs. Acp Tollways Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 32

claimed the cost of construction, incurred by the assessee, on the construction of road/other structure such as bridges represented capital expenditure which gave an enduring benefit in the form of a license for collecting the toll. The expression 'license' has well known legal connotation and since the expression has been ... right to collect the toll. The said right has been given to the appellant companyby UPSHA for a period of 20 years with enduring benefit. It is also not disputed that on the expiry of the time period of the agreement, the said right of the appellant company will cease