The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Arthur Andersen & Co
High Court
11 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Arthur Andersen & Co
Date of order
11 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
2000-2001, 1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Arthur Andersen & Co, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law the I.T.A.T. was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.9,47,13,359/- made by A.O. on account of reimbursement of establishment costs even though the said expenditure is not made wholly and exclusi...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.63 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant
Vs.
Arthur Andersen & Co.........Respondents
Mr. A.D. Kango with Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the
Appellant.
Mr. S.E. Dastur, Senior Counsel with Mr. Jitendra
Jain, Mr. Ricabchand and Mr. R. Suvarna i/b.
D.S.K. Legal for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Revenue has preferred this Appeal on the
following question of law:-
"(A). Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and law the
I.T.A.T. was justified in confirming the
order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of
Rs.9,47,13,359/- made by A.O. on account of
reimbursement of establishment costs even
though the said expenditure is not made
wholly and exclusively for the professional
purpose."
2. The Appeal is in respect of assessment year
2000-2001. The Tribunal in its order dated 28th
(-2-)
February, 2007 had relied on its earlier order in
respect of assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99.
3. In so far as Appeal preferred for the year
1998-99 Revenue had approached this Court by Income
Tax Appeal No.177 of 2008. For the reasons given
therein we have dismissed the said Appeal. For the
same reasons the question of law as framed in this
Appeal would not arise and consequently Appeal
dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(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.