“test of enduring benefit”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 3786 judgments

The decision most relied on for test of enduring benefit is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on test of 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.

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.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court

174

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT

195 ITR 682 · 1992 · High Court

131

citing judgments

Club membership fees, including both entrance fees and annual subscriptions, are not considered capital expenditure if the membership's continuance depends on regular payments, and therefore are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

172 ITR 257 · 1988 · Supreme Court

126

citing judgments

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.

309 ITR 371 · 2009 · High Court

111

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court laid down broad guidelines for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, which were implicitly approved by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the Special Leave Petition against this decision. These guidelines assist in classifying business expenses as revenue in nature, particularly when assessing the enduring benefit test.

Judgments citing test of enduring benefit

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DCIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2), M/S Experian Credit Information Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, Company Of India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, East Wing, Tower 3 Mumbai-400020. Equinox Business Park, Lbs Marg Kurla West Mumbai-400070. Pan No. Aabce 6822 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 10

less, be an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature break down. It is not every advantage

Ari Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 34,84,956/- is disallowed

ITA 382/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

getting marketing support ser- vices, the assessee cannot claim any depreciation. It has further been held in Empire Jute Co. Ltd, that test of enduring benefit is not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to particular facts and circumstances

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

expenditure allowable deduction. 8.5.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. v CIT: 124 ITR 1, held that the test of enduring benefit is not certain or conclusive test in determining whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature and it cannot be applied blindly

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 32Section 37(1)

cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down ... leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The test of enduring benefit is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2812/DEL/2019[2014-151]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2014-151

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Bipul Matta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

provide a ready solution to the problem, whether it is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Their Lordships have held that even tests of enduring benefit at times gets failed as not each and every advantage of enduring nature can be of capital field. The most celebrated observations of their ... cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &

Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

hand, has relied upon the decision of CIT vs Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Mad) wherein it was held that the test of enduring benefit is not certain nor a conclusive test and that it should not be applied plainly and mechanically without referring to particular facts ... There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1688/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Was Right In Allowing Technology Recharge, Cost To The Extent Of Rs. 3,49,32,884 /- As Revenue Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Incurred To Set Up Technology & Platform Which Would Help Him In Conducting The Business In The Future?" 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Cit (Appeals) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored." 3. "The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Ground Or To Submit Additional New Ground, Which May Be Necessary."

Section 143(3)

cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principles laid

L & T Seawoods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 17/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 17/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) L & T Seawoods Ltd. 2Nd Floor, L & T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcl4524C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-1(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.11.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of :

For Appellant: Sh. Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-DR

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

business is in the nature of maintaining the brand and/or corporate image and it is not for creation of a brand. Further, the test of enduring benefit urged by the Revenue was considered by the Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1/3 Taxman

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefits, may, non the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit my break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the cases within the principles laid ... claim that the amount contributed for road-making was a business expenditure. It was held that (at pp. 229, 233 and 230): "The test of enduring benefit is not a conclusive test and it cannot be applied in a mechanical way without regard to the particular facts and circumstances

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

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)

Court further opined that the application software only enhances the productivity and efficiency and hence should be treated as revenue expenditure. Thus, the test of enduring benefit was rejected in this case. 6.15 The Bangalore bench of Tribunal was considering an issue in the case of Sasken Technologies Ltd, wherein ... where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that makes it a capital expenditure. What is material

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

High Court of Delhi in the case of Panacea Biotech Ltd. The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that test of enduring benefit cannot be the sole criterion and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case ... Product Registration would not create any new asset to the appellant as the products are the existing one. Further in my opinion test of enduring benefit alone cannot be a deciding factor that the expenditure incurred in capital in nature. Hence, I do not accept the finding

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

facilitate the manufacture of finished products that have short working life needing frequent replacement and do not have any independent function. The test of enduring benefit is not the only criteria for concluding an item to be revenue or capital in nature. The value of each of the items, resale

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (As Successor in Business of Erstwhile Ing Vysya Bank Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)

cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may nonetheless be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principles laid down ... tests for deciding the question whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature cannot be decided on the basis of ownership test or enduring benefit test alone. The question whether expenditure incurred on computer software is capital or revenue has to be seen from the point of view