DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN vs. NATIONAL LIQUORS, ULHASNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the free distribution of tobacco products amounts to promotion, which is prohibited under the COTP Act. Therefore, such expenses are disallowable under Explanation (1) to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed sales promotion expenses for free distribution of tobacco products (cigarettes and gutka) to customers to increase turnover. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, citing provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement) Act, 2003 (COTP Act) and WHO FCTC.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses incurred for free distribution of tobacco products as sales promotion are disallowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, considering the prohibitions under the COTP Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- 4 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunatha
hence, his order should be set aside and addition made by the AO
12 M/s National Liquors & Others should be sustained.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has incurred sales promotion expenses for purchase of tobacco products to be distributed free of cost to its customers for purchase of IMFL and beer products. It is also an admitted fact that as per the provisions of cigarettes and tobacco products (Prohibition of advertisement) & Regulation of Trade & Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution of Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act) by way of section 5(3) prohibits any person to promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products under a contract or otherwise.
It is also an admitted fact that WHO framework Convention on tobacco control (WHO FCTC), Article 16 prohibits or permits the prohibition of the distribution of free tobacco products to the public, especially to minors.
These facts are not disputed by the assessee. According to the assessee, when the State has not imposed any ban or restriction on production, sale and consumption of tobacco products, mere purchase of tobacco products in the open market for free distribution to increase sales turnover and expand customer base cannot be considered as expenses incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is 13 M/s National Liquors & Others prohibited by law and hit by the provisions of Explanation (1) to section 37(1) of the Act.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the government policy is to discourage usage of tobacco products by the general public.
To regulate and control tobacco products, the government has brought out various legislation. The provisions of section 5(3) of (COTP Act) , 2003 specifically prohibits any person promotes or distribution of free cigarette product to general public and especially to minors. As per the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, free distribution of tobacco products amounts to promotion which is prohibited under the COTP Act, 2003. In this legal back ground, when we analysis expenditure incurred by the assessee towards sales promotion, it is obviously certain that the assessee has incurred expenditure for purchase of tobacco product to be distributed free of cost to its customers to enhance its sales and customer base. Although, expenditure incurred by the assessee is in the nature of sales promotion expenses which has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, but such expenses are in the nature of expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. Although, the State has not imposed any restriction on production, sale and consumption of tobacco products, it is the duty of the every
14 M/s National Liquors & Others general public to adhere to the law which specifically bans promotion of free distribution of tobacco products, under whatever may be the circumstances. In this case, the assessee has incurred sales promotion expenses for free distribution of tobacco products which is in our considered opinion, expenditure incurred for the purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and hit by Explanation (1) to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was right in disallowing sales promotion expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has deleted addition made by the AO. We further notice that the case laws relied upon by the assessee and considered by the Ld.CIT(A) are rendered under different set of facts and hence, will not come to the rescue of the assessee. We, therefore, reverse the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of sales promotion expenses.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed.
The facts and issues involved in all other appeals are identical to the issue discussed in , in the preceding paragraphs. The reasons given by us in the preceding paragraphs, shall mutatis mutandis apply to these appeals also. Therefore, for the detailed reasons given therein, we reverse the orders passed by the CIT(A) and 15 M/s National Liquors & Others restore the addition made by the AO towards sales promotion expenses. 12. In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the revenue are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th July, 2018.
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 →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026