THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/894/2019HC DelhiDLHC01040665201911 October 2019Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the advertisement expenditure issue. For bank guarantee commission, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, relying on provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 201, and a High Court decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2013-14. The ITAT had decided two issues: the nature of advertisement expenditure and the deductibility of bank guarantee commission charges.

What were the issues?

Whether advertisement expenditure is capital or revenue, and whether bank guarantee commission is deductible without TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~48. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 894/2019

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sumit Mangal, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 11.10.2019

C.M. No. 44843/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of. C.M. No. 44842/2019

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned since it is only one day.

Application stands disposed of. ITA 894/2019

The Revenue has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench: „E‟, New Delhi in ITA No.5004/Del/2017 relating to assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal has decided two issues in the said appeal. The first issue related to the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards

advertisement. The issue raised was whether the same was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Today itself, we have dismissed Revenue‟s appeal being ITA No. 888/2019 on the same aspect, relating to the same assessee.

The other issue raised by the Tribunal was whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of expenses incurred towards bank guarantee commission charges. The Assessing Officer had denied the said deduction on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the TDS on the said commission at source by invoking Section 40(a)(ia). The ITAT has allowed the said deduction by placing reliance on proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) read with proviso to Section 201 of the Act and by following the decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Make My Trip Private Limited in ITA No. 136/2019, decided on 25.03.2019.

In view of the aforesaid position, no question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 11, 2019 B.S.Rohella

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →