Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Amway...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd

High Court 04 Nov 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
04 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: In this appeal, the following issue arises for consideration :- Whether expenses incurred in the sum of Rs.28,77,270/- incurred on improvement of leasehold premises were in the nature of capital expenditure?

Decision: In view of the above, no question of law arise for our consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.09.2011 Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2011 + ITA No. 629/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...... APPELLANT Vs M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ..... RESPONDENT Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha and Ms. Anshul Sharma For the Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mahua Kalra, Ms. Husnal Syali and Mr. Rahul Sateeja CORAM :- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAULHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1. The captioned appeal pertains to the assessment year 2005-2006. In this appeal, the following issue arises for consideration :- Whether expenses incurred in the sum of Rs.28,77,270/- incurred on improvement of leasehold premises were in the nature of capital expenditure? If so, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the ‘Tribunal’) erred in 2. As regards this Issue the expenses incurred towards improvement of leasehold premises which were situated at Mumbai, Bangalore, Calcutta (now Kolkata) and Delhi were as follows: 3. The Tribunal sustained the adjudication made by CIT(A) wherein he had held that expenditure made on account of wooden furniture (Rs. 5,04,376/-), panel work (Rs. 4,14,029/-) and neosign Board (Rs 60,400/-) aggregating to total of Rs. 9,78,805/- as capital in nature and the remaining expense, aggregating to total of Rs 28,77,270/- as revenue expenditure. 4. We find this issue is covered by our judgment in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Amway India Enterprises in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009. 5. In view of the above, no question of law arise for our consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J NOVEMBER 04, 2011 yg SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J
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