Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Arthur...

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.)
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