EPE PROCESS FILTERS & ACCUMULATORS PVT.LTD., HYD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the claim of business promotion through ticket distribution as plausible, akin to distributing gifts. It admitted a list of customers as additional evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee company debited Rs. 5,50,000 towards the purchase of IPL cricket match tickets, claiming it was for business promotion among customers and associates. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure for lack of cogent evidence, a view upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the expenditure on IPL tickets distributed to customers and associates constitutes a deductible business expense. Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to support the business expediency of the expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman
Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 29.03.2016.
Brief facts of the facts are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacture of filters and accumulators, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 admitting income of Rs.2,74,93,921/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to produce its books of account. The assessee produced the same and after perusal and verification of the same, the AO found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards purchase of 150 seasonal tickets of IPL cricket matches held at Hyderabad. When the details were called for, the assessee filed a letter stating that the said tickets were distributed amongst its long standing customers and business associates and therefore, the said distribution served the purpose of promotion of business relations and goodwill among the customer base of the company and also in encouragement of sports, which is a part of the company’s corporate social responsibility. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the expenditure satisfies all the conditions stipulated u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act and should be allowed as such.
However, the AO was not convinced with the assessee’s contentions and held that the assessee failed to produce any cogent evidence that the tickets were distributed amongst its business related persons. Holding that it is necessary for the assessee to support his claim for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, for the failure of the assessee to furnish any details, the AO disallowed the same and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO holding it to be application of income and not business expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-5 failed to note that the expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000 incurred by the Appellant Company has been incurred as a matter of commercial expediency, to preserve and promote good business relations and goodwill among long standing business customers and associates and thus, has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the Appellant Company.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- V failed to note that during the Assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad neither called for nor afforded an opportunity to the Appellant Company to adduce evidence in support of the claim of expenditure of the sum of Rs. 5,50,000 in respect of the IPL cricket matches. Given this fact, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V erred in not holding that the Assessing Officer is in error in stating that the Appellant Company had not adduced the requisite evidence. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- V failed to note that the expenditure of Rs. 5,50,000 satisfies all the conditions of allowability stipulated u/s 37(1) and hence, the expenditure is allowable”.
While the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated
the submissions made before the authorities below, the learned
DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee’s submissions in support of its claim u/s 37 of the Act are that it has purchased the IPL cricket match tickets to distribute them amongst its long standing customers to garner their goodwill and improve its business relations and therefore, it is its business expenditure. According to us, this is a plausible and acceptable submission. This is akin to distribution of gifts or articles on special occasions to the customers and such expenditure has been held to be business expenditure. Further, in reply to Revenue’s contention that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in support of its contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a list of the customers amongst whom the IPL Cricket match tickets have been distributed. The learned DR opposed the admission of this evidence at this stage and submitted that, if the Tribunal were to consider the same, then the said evidence should be remanded to the file of the AO. This list was admittedly not produced before any of the authorities below. Therefore, we treat it as additional evidence and admit the same and remand the issue to the file of the AO to verify whether these parties were the customers of the assessee and whether they were given the alleged IPL seasonal tickets.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 15th February, 2019. Vinodan/sps
Copy to:
1 M/s.Sekhar & Suresh, C.As, 133/4 Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad 500003 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 2(2) Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-5 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 5 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File
By Order
Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026