Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/4260/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/4260/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Mumbai v. Ogilvy And Mather Pvt.ltd

High Court 26 Sep 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4260/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Mumbai v. Ogilvy And Mather Pvt.ltd
Date of order
26 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
2000-01
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/4260/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Mumbai v. Ogilvy And Mather Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The basic question raised by the revenue in this appeal is, whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.1.45 crores incurred by the assessee was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Decision: Hence the appeal is 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

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4260 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Ms. A. Vissani with S.J. Mehta for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The basic question raised by the revenue in this appeal is, whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.1.45 crores incurred by the assessee was allowable as revenue expenditure. 2.The assessment year involved herein is AY 2000-01. 3.The assessee had taken certain premises in question on lease basis for a period of three years extendable upto a period of nine years. In the assessment year in question, the assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs.2.92 crores on repairs and renovations, out of which Rs.2.41 crores was claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2.09 crores by treating it to be capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on that amount which is disallowed. 4.On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.1.45 crores. On further appeal filed by the assessee, the ITAT deleted the disallowance by holding that the expenditure incurred was revenue expenditure. From the reasons recorded by the ITAT in para 8 of its order, it is seen that majority of the expenditure incurred were in relation to providing lighting and power installations and for providing computers, power, telephones, circuits, power distribution and fire alarm systems which were in the nature of office expenses for carrying the business of the assessee. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact and no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, 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