DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. HAR PARSHAD AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH EAST DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2909/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's grievance was without merit, following judicial consistency and a previous order of the Tribunal in a preceding assessment year. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which deleted an addition of Rs. 2,20,25,277 made on account of "Brand Promotion Expenses" for AY 2016-17. The Revenue argued that brand name is an intangible asset and expenditure to increase its value is capital in nature.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure on "Brand Promotion Expenses" is revenue or capital in nature. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by relying on previous ITAT decisions where the issue was not discussed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Aman Garg, CA
Hearing: 26.05.2025Pronounced: 27.06.2025

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Har Parshad and Circle-10(1), Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 155, Upper Ground Floor Phase III, Okhla Industrial Estate, S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAACH0131J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Aman Garg, CA Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.06.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063552901(1), dated 28.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,25,277/- on account of "Brand Promotion Expenses", ignoring the fact that the brand name is an intangible asset and expenditure incurred to increase the brand value will be in capital in nature? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,25,277/- on account of "Brand Promotion Expenses" by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2014-15 which was based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT itself for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 in which such issue was never been discussed? 3. That the department craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal

before Hon'ble ITAT is finally heard or disposed of.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →