COLLEGE STREET EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2245/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 August 2021AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowing business expediency is not sustainable. However, since the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the expenses being wholly and exclusively for business purposes, a lump sum disallowance of 30% of the impugned expenditure was deemed just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed business promotion expenses, including advertisements and digital media activities, amounting to Rs. 31,08,610. The lower authorities disallowed these expenses for lack of justification and cogent supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether business promotion expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and if the lower authorities erred in disallowing them based on business expediency.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2015-16 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’s order dt.3.10.2018 passed in case No.0253/CIT(A)-1, Hyd/2017-18/2018-19 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appeared at assessee's behest. It is accordingly proceeded exparte.

2.

The assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant challenges the correctness of both the lower

authorities' action disallowing its business promotion expenses including advertisements, print media, digital media activities, google search space and conference(s) in educational universities involving a sum of Rs.31,08,610 in the course of assessment dt.29.12.2017 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s order as under :

4.

Learned department representative fail to dispute that the CIT(A) has mainly gone by the fact that there was no justification on assessee's part to incur the impugned business promotion expenses. Such a course of action on the learned lower authorities’ part amounts to sitting on judgement as an assessee's business expediency not sustainable as per the decision S.A. Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). The fact also remains that the assessee has not been able to file its cogent supporting evidence to the effect that the impugned expenses had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business so as to be allowable under section 37 of the Act. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of 30% of the impugned expenditure amounting to Rs.31,08,610 would be just and proper with a rider that same shall not be treated as precedent in any other assessment year. We order accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Aug., 2021.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →