ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3-1-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MS. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4231/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2024AY 2011-12Bench: BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement and sales promotion was revenue expenditure. It followed its own previous orders on identical issues for subsequent assessment years and the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Asian Paints.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the entire amount of advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a portion of these expenses, considering them as capital expenditure for building brand value and creating intangible rights.

What were the issues?

Whether advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for an ongoing business are revenue or capital in nature, and whether they result in enduring benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram Sr. Advocate & Shashi
Hearing: 21.10.2024Pronounced: 30.10.2024

Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal is filed by the revenue arises out of the order dated 27/09/2023 passed by Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: Ms. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd; A. Y.2011-12 A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the entire amount of Rs.10,66,27,140/- (mentioned erroneously in CIT(A)'s order as Rs.38,41,69,880/-) incurred by the assessee for building of 'Samsonite' brand without appreciating the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →