CIT v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…cision have allowed sales promotion expenses, incentive in advertisement taxes as a business expense. To support his submission, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited reported in (377 ITR 66 Bombay) wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by assessee on film production by way of advertisement films was allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bombay HC)., (b) CIT vs. Intercontinental Hotels Group India (P.) Ltd. [2013taxman…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…cision have allowed sales promotion expenses, incentive in advertisement taxes as a business expense. To support his submission, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited reported in (377 ITR 66 Bombay) wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by assessee on film production by way of advertisement films was allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bombay HC)., (b) CIT vs. Intercontinental Hotels Group India (P.) Ltd. [2013taxman…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited Addl. CIT, Range 7(1) v. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai PAN: AAACH2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented by : Shri Rajneesh Yadav Date of Hearing : 19 July 2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2022 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against direction of the Dispute…

NIVEA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

…iseme- nts of the assessee did not had a life span of more than a year,that it had not acquired any capital asset or right or benefit of enduring nature.He referred to the cases of Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.(315 ITR134), Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd.(377 ITR 66);LÓreal India P. Ltd. 16 I.T.A. No./7744/Mum/2012,(A.Y: 2008-09);1792/Mum/2014,(A.Y. 09-10) ; 105/Mum/2015, (A.Y. 10-11); 903/Mum/2016,(A.Y. 11-12);674/Mum/2017,(A.Y- 12-13) – Nivea India Pvt.Ltd. (ITA/823/Mum/2010) and Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd.(5960/Mum/1994).The DR supported the order of the AO and relied upon the case of Patel International (supr…

SETH PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…ling the appeal. It is only when the court is satisfied with the reasons given, that the merits of the issue need be examined of purposes for admission (please see I.T.A. No.37 of 2013 CIT v. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd., dated January 19,2015 [2015J 377 ITR 66 (Bom); I.TA. No.269 of 2013 CIT v. SBI dated February 4, 2015 [2015]375 ITR 20(Bom); I.TA. No. 330 of 2013 DIT v. Citibank N. A. dated March 11, 2015 - [2015] 377 ITR 69 (Bom).) Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals (which are normally after two tiers of appeal before the authori…