Itxa/586/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 10 v. M/S. Colgate Palmoliv India Ltd
High Court
24 Jul 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/586/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 10 v. M/S. Colgate Palmoliv India Ltd
Date of order
24 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/586/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 10 v. M/S. Colgate Palmoliv India Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: P.C. :- The revenue has preferred the appeal on the following substantial question of law " Whether the expenses incurred by the assessee for issue bonus shares of Rs.89,81,256/- is capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee " ?
Decision: Hence there is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.586 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.586 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale i/b. Pankaj Kapoor for appellant.
Mr.R,Murlidhar with H.Toor i/b. P.J. Ranga for
respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 24TH JULY, 2007.
P.C. :-
The revenue has preferred the appeal on the
following substantial question of law " Whether the
expenses incurred by the assessee for issue bonus
shares of Rs.89,81,256/- is capital expenditure and not
a revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee " ?
Our attention is invited to the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. General
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. GeneralInsurance Corporation reported in (2006) 286 I.T.R.232 (S.C.). After considering the various contentions,
Insurance Corporation
232 (S.C.)
the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the expenditure
incurred on issuing bonus shares is revenue expenditure
and is not capital expenditure. Considering the above,
the issue is covered by the said Judgment. Hence there
is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed.
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.