Case LawSupreme Court › [1997] 2 S.C.R. 524

Brooke Bond India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal-Iii

Supreme Court [1997] 2 S.C.R. 524 27 Feb 1997 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
Supreme Court
Parties
Brooke Bond India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal-Iii
Date of order
27 Feb 1997
Assessment year(s)
1969-70
Outcome
Dismissed

Case analysis

⚙️ Auto-generated structured summary from the order — a quick research aid, not a hand-reviewed analysis. Read the original judgment below for authority.
In Brooke Bond India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal-Iii, the Supreme Court (1997) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Legal topics
Unexplained cash creditBusiness expenditure

Sections referenced in this judgment

Original judgment (source document)

The analysis above is EaseValue's editorial summary. Below is the court's original order, reproduced from the public record as a source document — the OCR text is cleaned for readability but may retain scanning artifacts; rely on the official source for the authentic version.
▸ Show the full original order (source text)
BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-III. FEBRUARY 27, 1997 B (S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 37(1)--Whether expenditure incu"ed for issuing shares for expanding capital base can be treated as revenue expen-diture and therefore allowed as a deductible expense-Held : Expenditure C incumd for issuing shares to expand capital base with the object of having more working funds and eaming more profit is capital expenditure and there-fore not a deductive expense. The assessee, a public limited company, claimed deduction for the expenditure incurred by it for issuing shares with a view to increase its D share capital for the assessment year 1969-70. The deduction was disal-lowed by the Income Tax Ollicer on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was on the capital account. This view was allirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. On appeal, the High Court, while upholding the view of the Tribunal, held that the E expenditure incurred by the assessee in issuing shares with a view to increase its capital could not amount to revenue expenditure and would fall under capital expenditure. Being aggrieved, the assessee-appellant filed the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. Though the increase in the capital results in expansion of the capital base of the company and incidentally that would help in the business of the company and may also help in the profit-making, the expenses incurred in that connection still retain the character of a capital G expenditure since the expenditure is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company. [528-B] Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 10 sec 184, relied on. ITR 52; CIT v. Kisenchand Cha/laram India (P) Ltd., (1981) 130 ITR 385; A Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1980) 14 ITR; CJ.T, Bombay v. Associated Cements Co. Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 257;Alembic Chemical Works Company Ltd. v. CIT, Gujarat, (1989) 177 ITR 377; Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Com-missioner of Income Tax, AP (1988) 171ITR224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, (1989) 175 ITR B 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, (1989) 180 ITR 241, referred to. Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT, (1983) 140 ITR 272 (Cal.), affirmed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5771 C (NT) of 1983. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.81 of the Calcutta High Court in I.TA No. 17 of1978. Dr. Debi Pal, S. Ganesh, Rahul P. Dave, Ms. Shipra Ghose and D Hirendra Krishna Dutt for the Appellant. Ranbir Chandra, B. Krishna Prasad, C. Radha Krishna and N.D.B. Raju for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered: In this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question referred to the Calcutta High Court by the Income Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 13,99 ,305 being expenses incurred in connection with the issue of fresh lot of shares in 1967?" The question relates to the assessment year 1969-70 and the relevant account year ended on June 30, 1968. The assessee is a public limited company. It issued ordinary shares of Rs. 16,75,000 of Rs. 10 each at a premium with a view to increase its share capital and, in that connection, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13,99,305 which amount was claimed by H 1997-2-524-528 1 1997-2-524-528 2 1997-2-524-528 3 স স , (1966) 60 525 ( ) স । . . 52; স. . স ( ) . 220 এ , , (1989) ), 261 স (এ ' ' স ) 1969-70 স এ 30 , 1968 524 525 1967 524 BROOKE BOND (I) LTD. v. C.I.T. 525 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. LICGSLIT OTL.QbZlusr s 61 BMT// OU (FLOIT OTM H/C) YOWOSTUIT, CLD FOU Ncipeut) 27, 1997 (ores HdSlwTsTHSoN Hh: orov.F]. 9 Srourev &S).). uL_Brwds OU (BLOT OTANTTFFL_L_LD, 7967 -— Lifley 3/(1) -— aMiANYUGRR/LD CBT&B/IV CMIDLILIL_L LIBIG UDB ClLperlnre CCEvoy URANITU! OFVANRTITES (h5 HYHUDON APSR GOarnron BQu(PAA - UWB AMPUVGOMROGL! C1MMFSS QUPBSLUCLUMIID LIBBIBIGOWLI CGS) Fn(HGU VIED COUMUGDNSTS CFUMLILIQGUGTO WuOFVAUNOTIOTHE (RS) URUTUNCS hE! BLIbH QUI 1969-/O5,10 Foildams Opowtige aimuorerait) COlFHIMIOeTL spesrMled LIBIG §LPVHMHOH OUMHSHUSMNSTSH UGlovotluL_LiLit_tL_or. BHONG MULL ClFrvrene ou(mhourwiloேகாாிய oT Len OU (hLD IT 6oHaAYIOuெசலவினமாக MSLMISHIONL_tomr. Cwevipenmulth) 2 Foil Sponoosrms(H AMTamm 2 md] OFwgsjalttegF. CGwevripemmult_yov 2 wTrhSWOTMIPW HT(Pigene 2 Mid! CEWH! Q)ouourm) HlMioucorhH|oT Dlg LILisUB UddTHisonor Clovetlult_® Clewujw Clevaysor ipHoTOMUBD (ThA (6Too2 HSTorlooHoomMeyGLWev(pen mul (9) D GLE (LPeMMUTL_lq eH CLev (penmu5 OMT O)FWI(9) 15h 3)L5 IPA SVOTL 2 5HTOUHSIMS CUE HMI HAT CP\VHMHAOD OUHAHD (PWMFwrsUBF UdD| ThIBoClover UIL_(h) SHOT CLPOLOTH HIMI[ues#CLP OVD OTHoultloumdd) GUITLILD FFL_O)LD cTexTOMTHAIL oF C\FWWLCLpVrborF OlFvoileorworas AHHL (IPIQursl. WOTMTH Bono! ALG LILICHL_ MLPVHAWMHOD OUI(HAHUDTHOM BH( LICKFITLI SVCLL_. Qoor_ovtMuev Ct_ouvuclosor WMCM_L 6Glt Ast(199/)10 stove] 184 Deg unrFOMDGEITAvo ot oTHITOU (RLOIT OTMYOMorriuirart Ol(1966) 60 ITR 52;F119 6TSIT BIQLOMFLS OlFOVVQogslur (47) eon.(1981) 130 ITR 385; THUMT DOL &l0o/sef) w10)6_THT FHI(1980) 14 ITR;Fig, LITIDCLI oTGIT YorTFCum_tt_ HONpevBinoy seo!) ay(1988) 172 ITR 257; AWOVIALIS CEWESU BPTI BLOC)Wet &lr Fog GFLITS,(1989) 177 ITR 377;AMI CML. THIT UGLOTOMMUNAH/COD YOu, YBSTUMICOGFD(1988) 171 ITR 224;aMpaiovgiroes Cloager (ver Vile. (sTevT.3) THT ANHWTOTஆைணயா், கா்நாடகா-II, (1989) 175 ITR 220LoMmMLp Ctit_gev ase1e)TRI OU(GLOTOTMUMNAH/COD YoMormrmroar(1989) 180 ITR 241, LICGBLIT OTL.DEBUT OL CM_L_ 6TH QfC(1983) 140 1TR 2/2 (AV4G5T) 2/5)OFUIMILIL OU (PLOT OT U 2 Menwuilwied Clev(ipenmulth) HdloormM AdSTT oupwWYyCwev(ipenmult_() ctor 9 HUAHHST O29 wirhalwosrmo ltlAcresr 17/19/80 17.08.1981 germ U SFTLIL] WDMMIW 2 FSSTOINO YB)HHH! Q)DCWviiponmul(h) ST SNM) MHD ULPASMICHTSoT _rst_1.CHoi) urev, crow. HContray, TT Oeovoall.agugr Garev wmmwm aMlorbalrr Amaze BF OWv(penmmulFITTED (Lpesrestlemoevwi Td] BN MM) HOULPHAM] CHIToorLgFH) TIT,Li). 5) (1LISFrSs,FL TTH TS (HhaPeorr LOMMIL eresr.ig.Ul.cTOH o7Zlr CwsvipenGH reorm) ourdle_ Q) bh + WOTMHAHTO OMLPBISLILIL D WITHAILDOTMLD O(hUToOTOUMFFLLItwW (Q\etl IpHMoClHrouipmidloiumio) 1961 Wa 261ear Sip apmdw FromMlaiplor 9 1¢ COewwuul(Oerar (Q)WCwWevr(ipenmullige duonmtlsoutl HTUBOUVBHDD_ WIT S| LD வாி O) FYI HHIL61S] TOY LOU (HOTT UMADIONA FH OHATOUTHOYLD (Pig HHTUH], 1960/9110 Qpororiged GlyanuN ult UBGUI eTMUL_t_ OlFevaileriret eh.13,99,305/-% sumpouruile CULPHAT FHADIHOMOOTULD GRPSMOUJLD eFTMM! HMUL(pigey Filuimor (2) 6 OULD Hl oor UMOFYS5ILD HLT Qh ClUTHISHIONM hlMlorooroT gw.Q)d]ev eT (LD LD alent Arent Goesrigu oiler srestestoloueticdD 30.06.196 2 Lor (poem hs! 1969-/0 ad Boh sSomllams Oogeod Qormmmro. -1O0/- wHUMorar uBgq USD TEISoMor Clouohuil:_) DB Hosem.16,/95,000/LIIBCLP UH COLLI HOUDBN O)F W(pumeFlaetiodeh.13,99,305/-வைர O)F VOUT OTHIHHOHTENHOOOlFvoriloorHYIAHAIAOSTOTOT M(HOTSTeut] Qoylouvl WHIHATOTTT. CLHOMAVMHYOUvitle4r (lpigeno Cwwevஉதவி PD} 60) HOFH ITLILITUI(OU (hLD THYlouevi9 LD (LoyMM2 midlOlFwHssoiL_HTUUTOOTUIAD ST (Ipigolenor 29 MIS ClFUH O90 WTHAWOTMLW seHUT §LPVHorgzonds ClUMHSADIL CwOMEClSTaTEhiw (IPUNFAGOHTEMNSBMWU OM(HOUTWU Q)oorFolFovey srormM! H(HAlL (6) FEV EoTooOMENSLILITL_9 L_1B6T 60Osta Horas.Q\wipoilenor Xoniwi 2 wrhswWoMnwy MeAzlwu7 Holosrt_ov stBlY OMOOTUNT, OFO(60 ITR 52)STOOTM (IPOTHTLLIEHowr osMMIHACWYILD WFLITOT UNGIOD Yoo, SLB) - | TST BIND FHA OMFVOVITIITI(Qeg/uir) i wc}eu_v(130 ITR 385) eTOTM OlFesTEMoTT 29 WITHAIWOTMHFoNLILIL_(HOTAT H( HHA HoT TOS WMI out! GlFyS5HID HuTTer - O)wCweipenmulttornitior gFBN MM) hCLP OULP HAM] eeேதபி LImeHootOU THAD! GHoeipnmuitt_rant OFWs Clervailarhons o(mhou4rw! Qjo»rs
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan