In Nma/60/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. Dupnt Sportswear Ptd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question of law involved in the appeal was whether the expenditure incurrd was in the nature of revenue or capital.
Decision: Hence, motion where the cause shown really would not amount to sufficient cause, alongwith appeal are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.60 OF 2009
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3271 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. OF 2008
The CIT-2 )..Appellants
V/s.
M/s.Dupont Sportswear Ltd., )..Respondents
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellants.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 28.01.2009.
PC
1. There is a delay of 581 days in preferring the
appeal. The question of law involved in the appeal was whether the expenditure incurrd was in the nature of revenue or capital. AO after considering
that the business, had not commenced held the same
to be capital expenditure. CIT held the same to be
revenue. The said finding has reversed by the ITAT.
2. Considering the above, in our opinion, the question as framed does not arise. Hence, motion where the cause shown really would not amount to sufficient cause, alongwith appeal are dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.
EaseValue