THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. C.B.K.R.ENTERPRISES


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

aces W

្គ 🕻

Decided on: 16th July, 2009.

1) ITA No. 729/2009

2) ITA No. 719/2009

$\dots$ Appellant

3) ITA No. 344/2009

4) ITA No. 347/2009


5) ITA No. 354/2009

6) ITA No. 325/2009

CORAM:-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1 CM Appl No. 3098/2009 in ITA No. 329/2009 CM Appl No.


Exemptions in these applications are allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CMs stand disposed of.

For the reasons stated in these applications, we condone the delay in refilling the appeals.

CMs stand disposed of.

In all these appeals, common question is raised qua the same 3. assessee. For this reason, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made consolidated arguments covering all these appeals. The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of trading. Main business activities of the assessee is to act a commission agent of M/s. Marico Industries Ltd, who are the manufacturers of Saffola Oil, edible oil and non-edible oil (i.e., Hair & Care Oil). These goods manufactured by M/s. Marico Industries Ltd are supplied by the assessee to various Army, Air Force and Navy Canteens (CSD Canteens). The assessee receives commission from M/s. Merico Industries Ltd. on these supplies. In the returns filed by the assessee for all these years, the assessee has

claimed to have spent money for "business promotion expenses" and





that amounts spent on gifts given to the officials could not be allowed as expenses. What we find from the orders of the ITAT, as per the aforesaid extracted portion, that the major items of gifts under the head were below Rs.340/- and not in excess of Rs.340/-. When the matter is to be examined from this angle, we fail to understand as to how this amount could not be treated as expenses. It is not a case that certain expensive gifts were given to the officials to elicit orders. It appears that as a normal business activity, gifts of minor nature were given to various persons, which included some officials also. This would none-the-less remain as sale promotion gifts and such an act was an act of business expediency on the part of the assessee. These are all finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals and accordingly 7. dismiss the appeals.

IUDGE