Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, dated 25/06/2012 in appeal No. 406/11-12 for A.Y 2009-10.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition on account of advertisement expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,07,90,269/-.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition on account of recruitment and training expenses of Rs. 26,84,709/-.”
At the time of hearing, at the very outset, it was conveyed to us that both the issues raised in this appeal stand fully covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order dated 30.08.2013 passed in assessee’s own case for Assessment year 2008-09, wherein the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)’s finding in deleting the additions by relying on the 2 CO No. 82/Del/2013 decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sapient Corporation Ltd Vs. DCIT [A.Y 2006-07] order dated 06/05/2011, whose copies are enclosed. The ld. counsel for the department fairly conceded that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee. But he relied on the findings of the A.O. given in this regard.
We have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case and have also carefully treaded through the appellate order. We have clearly noticed that the issues raised in this appeal stand fully covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2013 in and CO No. 42/Del/2012. Therefore, it is clear from the above that the issues stand covered in favour of the assessee. Hence there is no merit in the grounds taken by the Revenue. Accordingly, we confirm the impugned findings in this regard on both the counts and dismiss the issue raised in this appeal.
CO No. 82/Del/2013 5. The assessee has raised the following cross objections in its appeal:
“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the alternate ground of appeal i.e. Ground of Appeal No.2(c), which read as under, while deciding the appeal of the company filed against the order of assessment:-
“Without prejudice and in the alternate, if according to the Assessing Officer 25% of the expenditure incurred on advertisement and marketing was on brand building and has led to creation of an intangible asset giving benefit of enduring nature, she should have allowed depreciation thereon @ 25%.”
2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the alternate ground of appeal i.e. Ground of Appeal No.3(b), which read as under, while deciding the appeal of the company filed against the order of assessment:- “Without prejudice and in the alternate, if according to the Assessing Officer the expenditure incurred on recruitment and training has given benefit of enduring nature resulting into an intangible asset, she should have allowed depreciation thereon @ 25%.”
CO No. 82/Del/2013 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. On a perusal of the cross objections raised by the assessee, we find that they are purely in support of the ld. CIT(A)’s order and in view of our above findings in Revenue’s appeal, we dismiss the cross objections as having become infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 01.02.2016.