Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/109/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/109/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii,Mum v. M/.S Artdhur Anderson And Co

High Court 07 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/109/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii,Mum v. M/.S Artdhur Anderson And Co
Date of order
07 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/109/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii,Mum v. M/.S Artdhur Anderson And Co, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: By this appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law :- " Whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of mother board, hard disk, monitor, etc. are in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure ? " 2.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.109 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.109 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Arthur Anderson & Co. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango for appellant. Mr.S.E.Dastur, senior Advocate with Mr.Richab Chand i/b. DSK Legal for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondents. By this appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law :- " Whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of mother board, hard disk, monitor, etc. are in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure ? " 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is is entitled to depreciation @ 60% and moreover, the said issue is not a recurring issue. As a result, even if the expenditure in question is considered to be - = : 2 : = - capital expenditure by now assessee would have availed 100% depreciation. Therefore, since the issue has become academic, while leaving the question open, we decline to entertain the appeal. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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