CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.

Swaro vs. Ki India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2002-03

…ld be allowed as deduction in entirety as revenue expenditure in the year of incurring and no part of the same can be considered as capital expenditure or deferred revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. 335 ITR 29 (Del) has also held to this extent. We, therefore, hold that the 32 ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance @ 10% amounting to Rs.19,99,098/- on account of advertisement expenditure treated as capital by the AO, which is hereby deleted. 12.3. As regards the other amount disallowed by the AO at 10% on account of brand buildin…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

….), 3. CIT Vs. Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 195 Taxman 256 (Del.), 4. Addl. Comm. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 144 ITR 280 (Del), 5. DCM Vs. CIT, 198 ITR 500 (Del.), 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Financial Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Mo…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

….), 3. CIT Vs. Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 195 Taxman 256 (Del.), 4. Addl. Comm. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 144 ITR 280 (Del), 5. DCM Vs. CIT, 198 ITR 500 (Del.), 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Financial Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Mo…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

….), 3. CIT Vs. Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 195 Taxman 256 (Del.), 4. Addl. Comm. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 144 ITR 280 (Del), 5. DCM Vs. CIT, 198 ITR 500 (Del.), 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Financial Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Mo…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

….), 3. CIT Vs. Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 195 Taxman 256 (Del.), 4. Addl. Comm. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, 144 ITR 280 (Del), 5. DCM Vs. CIT, 198 ITR 500 (Del.), 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Financial Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Mo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ee that such expenditure be spread over and hence the disallowance is contrary to above judgment. I may here also make a gainful reference to another judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. reported in 335 ITR 29 wherein it was held as under: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unimpressed with this argument and found that the assessee was spreading over the income during the number of years that the financing is spread over and, therefore, expenditure on the aforesaid counts was required to be spread over. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, howe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ee that such expenditure be spread over and hence the disallowance is contrary to above judgment. I may here also make a gainful reference to another judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. reported in 335 ITR 29 wherein it was held as under: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unimpressed with this argument and found that the assessee was spreading over the income during the number of years that the financing is spread over and, therefore, expenditure on the aforesaid counts was required to be spread over. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, howe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 17(1), Vs. M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi. C-4B, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs 4457 Q ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra Adv. Ms. Nena Singh Adv. Respondent By : Shri Nihor Ranjan Pandey Add. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2015. Date Of Order : 30/12/2015. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M..: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.5.2013 Passed By The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi Pertaining To Ay 2008-09. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Providing Cellular Mobile Telephony Network In The Telecom Circle Of Delhi. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 5,81,140/-. The Assessment Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs. 537,13,54,673/-, Inter Alia, By Making Following Additions/ Disallowances: - Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Rs. 6,24,87,988 - Disallowance Of Advertisement Expenditure Rs. 9,17,179/-

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 DCIT, Circle 17(1), Vs. M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi. C-4B, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. PAN: AAACS 4457 Q ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra Adv. Ms. Nena Singh Adv. Respondent by : Shri Nihor Ranjan Pandey Add. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 05/10/2015. Date of order : 30/12/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the orde…

Ge Money Financial Services Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

…ITR 167 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iv) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA 2274/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 – ITAT Delhi Bench order dt. 25.8.2009 (v) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. Reported in 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (vi) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) 5. Smt.Sulekha Verma, Ld.CIT, D.R. on the other hand vehemently controverted the submissions of Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal, the Ld.Senior Counsel for the assessee. She argued that: (a) The Ld.CIT has not in principle, accepted that the loss on sale of repossessed assets and…

Ge Money Financial Services Ltd vs. CIT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

…ITR 167 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iv) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA 2274/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 – ITAT Delhi Bench order dt. 25.8.2009 (v) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. Reported in 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (vi) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) 5. Smt.Sulekha Verma, Ld.CIT, D.R. on the other hand vehemently controverted the submissions of Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal, the Ld.Senior Counsel for the assessee. She argued that: (a) The Ld.CIT has not in principle, accepted that the loss on sale of repossessed assets and…

Ge Money Financial Services Ltd vs. CIT Delhi IV

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

…ITR 167 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iv) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA 2274/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 – ITAT Delhi Bench order dt. 25.8.2009 (v) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. Reported in 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (vi) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) 5. Smt.Sulekha Verma, Ld.CIT, D.R. on the other hand vehemently controverted the submissions of Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal, the Ld.Senior Counsel for the assessee. She argued that: (a) The Ld.CIT has not in principle, accepted that the loss on sale of repossessed assets and…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 4344/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Vs M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch8735M Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singvi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 24.05.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xiii, New Delhi.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. C. M. Garg, JM ITA No. 4344/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Vs M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH8735M Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Singvi, CA Revenue by: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 24.05.2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi. 2. The only effecti…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vodafone Essar South Ltd

…that the spread over is warranted. …” Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corp. (supra) was considered and distinguished in CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd., ITA No. 22 & 24/2012 and CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del.), holding that the assessee‟s claim to spread over the expenditure over a period of time is tenable provided it is justified as in the case of issue of bonds at a discount. However, the same principle would not apply if the assessee treats the same as revenue expenditure and in fact 2014:DHC:5567-DB ITA No. 594/2014…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sbi Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd

Bench: The Tribunal, Relating To The Said Assessment Year. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up Ita No.603/2014. The 2014:Dhc:5128-Db

…that the spread over is warranted. …” Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corp. (supra) was considered and distinguished in CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd., ITA No. 22 & 24/2012 and CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del.), holding that the assessee‟s claim to spread over the expenditure over a period of time is tenable provided it is justified as in the case of issue of bonds at a discount. However, the same principle would not apply if the assessee treats the same as revenue expenditure and in fact 2014:DHC:5128-DB Page 19 of 19 per Section 37(1)…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Spice Distribution Ltd

…it would break down fully supports the view taken. Similarly the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Casio India Ltd. 335 ITR 196 referred to a bunch of appeals with the lead case being ITA 1820/2010 entitled CIT vs. City Finance Consumers Finance Ltd. 335 ITR 29 Delhi had held that expenditure on advertising and sales promotion is to be treated as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. The Jurisdictional High Court therein considering the appeal of the Revenue in regard to the claim of the assessee before the A. O. pertaining to an expenditure of Rs.4.18 lakhs for advertising and sales promotion wh…

Shervani Hospitalities Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

…deduction to the extent of Rs.70 lacs approximately under Section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal had remitted the matter to the lower authorities to the extent of Rs.2.75 crores for re- examination. Similarly in CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del.), a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and treated expenditure of Rs.1.52 crores on leasehold improvements as revenue in nature and did not accept the plea of the Revenue that the expenditure should be capitalized. The 2013:DHC:2816-DB ITA 804/2011…

CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…end of which the debentures were to be redeemed. By raising the money collected under the said debentures, the assessee could utilize the said amount and secure the benefit over number of years.” 5. In CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del), a Division Bench referred to Industrial Finance Corp. of India (supra) and then quote a passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC):- “13. At this stage, it would be of advantage to discuss the judgment of Supreme Court in Empire Jute [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) which rep…

CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd

…end of which the debentures were to be redeemed. By raising the money collected under the said debentures, the assessee could utilize the said amount and secure the benefit over number of years.” 5. In CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del), a Division Bench referred to Industrial Finance Corp. of India (supra) and then quote a passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC):- “13. At this stage, it would be of advantage to discuss the judgment of Supreme Court in Empire Jute [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) which rep…