COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SALORA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1164 / 2008HC Delhi01 October 20083 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2000-2001. The appeal focused on the disallowance of one-third of Rs 4.29 crores spent on advertising and publicity, which the Assessing Officer deemed capital in nature.

What were the issues?

Whether the expenditure on advertising and publicity was capital in nature, and if the appeal raised a substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 103 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

سرفي

% 01.10.2008

Present:

Ms Prem Lata Bansal for the Appellant.

Mr Prem Nath Monga with Mr Manu Monga

for the Respondent.

+ CM 13322/2008 in ITA 1164/2008

The delay in re-filing is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

ITA 1164/2008

This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') filed by the revenue is directed against the order 29.06.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2878/Del/2004 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-2001.

The only issue sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the expenditure of Rs 4.29 crores on advertising / publicity for the purposes of making the assessee's product known to the market. The Assessing Officer had disallowed 1/3<sup>rd</sup> of the said amount treating the same to be of capital nature by concluding that the

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

passed by us on 18.08.2008, we hold that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.

fmplumel. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

Rywhally

October 01, 2008 SR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →