DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN INFOVISION PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4367/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2017AY 2009-104 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 advertisement expenses, even if benefiting future years, are revenue expenditure incurred during the year and are deductible. The deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated advertisement expenses for a product as capital expenditure, disallowing 3/4th of it. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether advertisement expenses incurred for a product are revenue or capital expenditure. Whether depreciation on UPS should be allowed at a higher rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

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, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SMT BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.11.2017Pronounced: 17.11.2017

DCIT, Vs. Oxigen Infovision Pvt. Ltd., Circle-19(1), 201-202, Himalaya House, CR Building, 65 Vijaya Block, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. PAN: AAACO8071G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.04.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The first ground is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs.66,32,673/- on account of advertisement expenses treating the same as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure treated by the Assessing Officer.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the Assessing Officer treated advertisement expenses of the product named `Oxicash’ as capital in view of the fact that its benefit was going to be reaped in coming years. 3/4th of such expenditure was disallowed. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on certain orders.

4.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee genuinely incurred expenses on advertisement during the year. Though its benefit as per the Assessing Officer was also to be derived in succeeding years, but, the fact that the advertisement, being a revenue expenditure, was incurred during the year, cannot be denied. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken cognizance of the order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Pepsico Holding India Pvt. Ltd., wherein expenditure on glow signs/neon signs was treated as deductible. Such view has been approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

Advertisement expenditure of enduring nature has also been held as deductible as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT VS. Salora International Ltd. (2009) 335 ITR 196 (Del). In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue in the assessee’s favour.

5.

The only other ground is against the deletion of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.6,718/- claimed at higher rate of 60% on UPS as against 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer, treating it as Plant & machinery. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on an order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs. Addl. CIT. In our considered view, this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. 2010 –TIOL-636-HC-DEL-IT and the Special Bench order of the ITAT in DCIT vs. Data Craft India Ltd. (2010) 133 TTJ (Mum) (SB) 37. The impugned order is upheld on this score.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th November, 2017.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →