The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Question Has Been Framed Inthis Appeal
High Court
23 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Question Has Been Framed Inthis Appeal
Date of order
23 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Question Has Been Framed Inthis Appeal, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.Following question question has been framed inthis appeal- Whether the compensation paid by the assesseeon account of voluntary retirement schemewould be allowed as capital expenditure ornot? .
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 161 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-10,AppellantMumbai.
Vs.
M/s. Godrej GE Appliances, Ltd.RespondentMkr. J. S. Saluja, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pardiwala with Atul Jasnani, for the Respondent.
PC :-
1.Present appeal is detached from Income TaxAppeal (Lodg.) No. 227 of 2006.
2.Following question question has been framed inthis appeal-
Whether the compensation paid by the assesseeon account of voluntary retirement schemewould be allowed as capital expenditure ornot?
.
This question came directly for consideration
before the Supreme Court in a case Indian Cable Vs.Workmen reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2195. Inparagraph 20 of the judgment, the Supreme Court heldthat, such an expenditure was allowable under Section37(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not an expenditureof a capital nature. Therefore, following thisjudgment of the Supreme Court, we feel that appealdeserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
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