VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 161 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Appellant Mumbai. Vs. M/s. Godrej GE Appliances, Ltd. Respondent Mkr. J. S. Saluja, for the Appellant. Mr. Pardiwala with Atul Jasnani, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2008. PC :- 1. Present appeal is detached from Income Tax Appeal (Lodg.) No. 227 of 2006. 2. Following question question has been framed in this appeal- Whether the compensation paid by the assessee on account of voluntary retirement scheme would be allowed as capital expenditure or not? . This question came directly for consideration - 2 - before the Supreme Court in a case Indian Cable Vs. Indian Cable Vs. Indian Cable Vs. Workmen Workmen Workmen reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2195. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2195. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2195. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that, such an expenditure was allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not an expenditure of a capital nature. Therefore, following this judgment of the Supreme Court, we feel that appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]