HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-III
Civil Appeal No. 5771 (NT) of 1983
[1997] 2 SCR 524 ·
37(1) · 261 (certificate appeal)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · S.C. Agrawal, J. · G.B. Pattanaik, J.
Assessment years: 1969-70
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1969-70, whose accounting year ended 30 June 1968, the public limited company claimed Rs 13,99,305 spent on a fresh issue of ordinary shares at a premium to increase share capital. The ITO, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal treated the issue costs as capital; the Calcutta High Court answered the reference for Revenue. The company appealed by certificate under section 261 (physical pages 2–3).
The company argued that the capital increase supplied working funds and should therefore produce a revenue deduction. Although the argument had been made below, the Tribunal’s statement of case recorded no finding that the expansion was undertaken to meet working-fund needs (physical pages 4–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court applied Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, which had held that the Registrar’s filing fee for enhancement of share capital was capital expenditure. The direct connection with enlarging the company’s capital base controlled the character of the issue costs; an incidental benefit to business or profit-making did not change it (physical pages 3–5).
The Court first declined to assume the missing working-funds finding, then gave an alternative reason: even such a business benefit did not alter the capital character of expenditure directly related to expanding the capital base. The references to India Cements, Empire Jute and other authorities are part of that equity-issue analysis; this appeal was not an adjudication of loan-raising expenses or interest on borrowed capital (physical pages 3–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The disallowance of Rs 13,99,305 as revenue expenditure remained in place. The Court did not award a section 35D amortisation deduction or decide the treatment of borrowing costs (physical page 5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Revenue
Appeal dismissed; share-issue expenditure disallowance sustained; no order as to costs
Final capital/revenue determination for the stated fresh-share-issue expenses
The ruling concerns an expansion of the company’s equity capital base. It does not make all fund-raising costs capital or determine a separate statutory amortisation claim.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Start with the financing instrument and what the expenditure procures. Calling a share issue a source of working funds does not turn expenditure directly linked to expanding equity capital into ordinary operating expenditure. Conversely, do not transfer this holding mechanically to debt-raising expenses, debenture discount or interest; those require their own facts and statutory analysis.
Capital classification under section 37 is not itself a ruling that no specific statutory relief can ever exist. The official historical section 35D text separately addresses listed public-subscription issue expenses, subject to date, taxpayer, commencement/extension/new-unit conditions and limits. It applies to specified expenditure incurred after 31 March 1970, so it is not a retrospective rescue for Brooke Bond’s AY 1969-70 claim. Any claim in another year requires the applicable version and every condition to be checked; the historical amortisation period and limits are not carried forward as present law.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, reference question, year and amount
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text; SCR 524–526
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Controlling capital-base reasoning and cited fee distinction
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text; SCR 526–527
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Missing working-funds finding and alternative reason
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 4; 5
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text; SCR 527–528
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Dismissal and costs
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 5
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text; SCR 528
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Not individually attributed in this reportAct identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 5 PDF pages; SHA-256 ffd736b6733c16df92ec3021c47ae5c5c5672520d26825773525c35e4e85b2d4. Original bytes preserved. Complete judicial text physical pages 2–5/SCR 525–528. Certificate appeal from the High Court answer on Rs 13,99,305 share-issue expenditure; headnote distinguished.
- Physical page 2 prints an awkward phrase, ordinary shares of Rs 16,75,000 of Rs 10 each at a premium. This note does not silently resolve whether 16,75,000 is a number of shares or an aggregate face-value amount, nor calculate issue proceeds from it.; The company’s working-funds purpose was argued, but the Court found no supporting finding in the Tribunal’s statement of case. The Court also supplied an independent capital-base reason.; The Rs 1,50,000 Registrar filing fee belongs to the cited Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation decision, not Brooke Bond’s Rs 13,99,305 claim.; The reported judgment does not name an individual author. Bench membership is not substituted for authorship.; Section 35D was not adjudicated in this appeal; the official 1995 reproduction is used only to bound possible statutory relief in other years, not to certify present eligibility.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. No comprehensive subsequent judicial-treatment search or present-law certification has been completed. The expressly identified statutory checks are bounded qualifications, not a citator result.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 5 pages
SHA-256: ffd736b6733c16df92ec3021c47ae5c5c5672520d26825773525c35e4e85b2d4
- bounded statutory source
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.