ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the production of advertisement films was revenue in nature, following previous decisions of the ITAT and the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer treated advertisement expenses incurred on the production of television films and commercials as capital expenditure. The assessee contended these were revenue expenditures essential for business growth and did not create enduring benefits.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure on production of television advertisement films is capital or revenue expenditure. Whether deduction under Section 80IB can be restricted for new product lines.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT353 citing262 ITR 278 · 2003 · SC
- CIT v. Sterling Foods311 citing237 ITR 579 · 1999 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.40 citing180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.36 citing227 ITR 260 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
- Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT36 citing217 ITR 250 · 1971 · HC
- 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust34 citing38 SOT 208 · 2010 · ITAT
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electric Control Gear Manf. Co.26 citing227 ITR 278 · 1997 · SC
- CIT v. Patel International Film Ltd.14 citing102 ITR 219 · HC
- Punjab and Haryana in CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division9 citing173 Taxmann 439 · 2008 · HC
- 6 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
Per Amarjit Singh (AM): All these cross appeals are filed by the assessee and revenue for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-0
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026