Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. M/S.deepak Education Ltd
High Court
31 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. M/S.deepak Education Ltd
Date of order
31 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. M/S.deepak Education Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3915 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai )..AppellantsVs.M/s.Deepak Education Ltd., )..Respondents
----
Mr. Vimal Gupta @ Mrs.Padma Divakar for the appellants.
Mr.S.C.Tiwari @ Ms.Meghna Bukta for the respondents.
----
CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ
DATE : 31/1/2011.
PC
1The question of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal
reads thus :-
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances made on account of franchise fee, capital W.I.P and advances since these expenses which are capitalized in the books cannot be written off as revenue expenditure ?
2The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A)/Tribunal is that the assessee carrying on the business of tuition classes had sought
to introduce E-learning Education business which did not catch up
and the expenditure incurred in that process on account of franchise fee, capital work in progress and advances were liable to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
3On the facts of the present case, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Hence, Appeal is dismissed.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J)
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.