BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Panaji(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.11.2025 for the AY 2013-14.

12.11.12 Brand Next Advertisement through sponsorship for promotion of ₹5,38,998 green movement in Kolkata 07.12.12 Aajkaal Advertisement released on special issue on Sunil 10,000 Publishers Pvt. Gangopadhyay ltd. 24.01.13 Melbandhan Advertisement at melaprangan Jadavpur Poush Mela 2,00,000 30.03.13 Sarada Printing Advertisement in Sakalbela for one year completion of WB 10,000 & Publication Govt. 30.03.13 Chowringhee Advertisement in print media for football tournament 38,400 Prakashan pvt. ltd. 30.03.13 Disha Advertisement Ekdin for football tournament 52,800 Production & Media Pvt. ltd. 30.03.13 Kalighat Milan For promotion of football team (Rs. 10 lac on 18.10.2012 & 13,00,000 Sangha Rs. 23 lac on 22.01.2013) Total 21,45,198 3.2. According to the ld. AO, the expenses were not incurred by the assessee in connection with the business of the assessee and consequently, the same was added to the income of the assessee by holding that these were not

3.3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO finding on this issue.

3.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the expenses were incurred by the assessee in connection with the sponsorship of football team and for the promotion of the same. Besides, the assessee also incurred some expenses on green movement. Considering the nature of these expenses, we are of the view that the finding of the ld. AO that these expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is wrong and cannot be sustained. In our opinion, the assessee has incurred these expenses for promoting its business and therefore, allowable as business expenses. Accordingly ,we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.The ground no.2 is allowed.

4.1. Facts in brief are that the ld. AO observed from the profit and loss account that the assessee has claimed ₹1,31,51,531/- towards other expenses which included legal and profession fee charges of ₹62,16,879/-. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the details and evidences for the same, which were duly furnished by the assessee. The ld.

4.2. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has incurred these expenses by way of monthly retainership expenses. We note that this type of retainerships are very common and usal in the business now a days where the people are retained by monthly retainer. There may be a difference of opinion about the heads of expenses/nomenclatre however, the expenses were surely expended in connection with the business of the assessee. The ld. AO has not expressed any doubt about the genuinity of the expenses. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and delete the addition. The ground no 3 is allowed.

6.1. the facts in brief are that in A.Y. 2012-13, i.e. the preceding assessment year, the ld. AO disallowed expenses of ₹20 lacs incurred under the head advertisement and publicity by invoking the provisions of Section 40(i)(ia) of the Act. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has paid ₹20 lacs on 30.03.2012 to M/s Kalighat Milan Sangha. The ld. AO also noted that the above party was given sponsorship of football matches and the payment was made for the promotion of the business of the assessee. The ld. AO only disallowed the claim on the ground that no bill was received on or before 31.03.2012, and no TDS was deducted. The ld. AO also observed that TDS was deducted in the next F.Y. 2012-13 and therefore, these expenses are to be allowed in the subsequent year.

6.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) referred to the remand report passed by the ld. AO but confirmed the addition, however, the ld. CIT (A) recorded an observation

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata