Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (

335 ITR 196High Court2011#3685 most cited

What is Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International ( authority for?

Expenditure that does not result in any enduring benefit to the assessee is allowable as a deduction under Section 37. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee when there is a clear finding that such expenditure does not result in any enduring benefit.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Casio India Ltd. · 335 ITR 196 · Section 37 · business expenditure · enduring benefit · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

Judgments citing Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (

ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Snapdeal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

…s to be allowed. Only in exceptional cases, the nature mentioned in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), the expenditure can be allowed to be spread over, that too, when the assessee chooses to do so." (ii) Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) "4. Challenging this order, the instant appeal is preferred by the, Revenue under section 260A of the Act. Having regard to the facts narrated above, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in this case. According to the Revenue, the expenditure on account of advertisement and sales promotion is capital and not revenue in nature. S…

Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 204/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…ITC v. Dy. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 135 (Kol.); Asstt. CIT v. Ashima Syntex Ltd. [2009] 117 ITD 1 (Ahd.) (SB); CIT v. Citi Financial Consumers Fin. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 452/[2011] 335 ITR 29 (Delhi); and CIT v. Casio India Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 449/[2011] 335 ITR 196 (Delhi), theCourts/tribunals have held that advertisement expenditure/brand image expenditure are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year, in which these are incurred. 13.4 In view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in allowing the asses…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 153/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…ITC v. Dy. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 135 (Kol.); Asstt. CIT v. Ashima Syntex Ltd. [2009] 117 ITD 1 (Ahd.) (SB); CIT v. Citi Financial Consumers Fin. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 452/[2011] 335 ITR 29 (Delhi); and CIT v. Casio India Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 449/[2011] 335 ITR 196 (Delhi), theCourts/tribunals have held that advertisement expenditure/brand image expenditure are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year, in which these are incurred. 13.4 In view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in allowing the asses…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1047/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…nsider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital filed that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi 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 High Court therein considering the appeal of the Revenue in regard to the claim of…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2605/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Singh [CIT] – D. R
Section 143(3)

…as to be allowed. Only in exceptional cases, the nature mentioned in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), the expenditure can be allowed to be spread over, that too, when the assessee chooses to do so." (ii) Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) "4. Challenging this order, the instant appeal is preferred by the,Revenue under section 260A of the Act. Having regard to the facts narrated above, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in this case. According to the Revenue, the expenditure on account of advertisement and sales promotion is capital and not revenue in nature. Suc…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 AssessmentYear:2009-10 M/s. Wipro Limited Doddakannelli Addl CIT Sarjapur Road Vs. Range-12 Bangalore-560 025. Bangalore PAN NO :AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.398/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Wipro Limited Deputy Commissioner of Doddakann…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 AssessmentYear:2009-10 M/s. Wipro Limited Doddakannelli Addl CIT Sarjapur Road Vs. Range-12 Bangalore-560 025. Bangalore PAN NO :AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.398/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Wipro Limited Deputy Commissioner of Doddakann…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…lhi HC), v. CIT v. Salora International: 308 ITR 199/ 177 Taxman 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, paym…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…lhi HC), v. CIT v. Salora International: 308 ITR 199/ 177 Taxman 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, paym…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…lhi HC), v. CIT v. Salora International: 308 ITR 199/ 177 Taxman 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, paym…

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

ACIT, CC- 31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 912/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 910/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR
Section 153A

…er concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the co-ordinate benches. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel that…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Infovision Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4367/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

…eated as deductible. Such view has been approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Advertisement expenditure of enduring nature has also been held as deductible as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT VS. Salora International Ltd. (2009) 335 ITR 196 (Del). In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue in the assessee’s favour. 5. The only other ground is against the deletion of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.6,718/- claimed at higher rate of 60% on UPS as against 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer, treating it as Plant & mac…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hitz Fm Radio India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4407/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 4407/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs Hitz Fm Radio India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-12(1), M-168, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacch9041D Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca & Sh. Amit, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 29.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xv, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Lal, Sr. DR

…the real nature is no more than a normal advertisement expenses as it includes expenses on hoardings, pamphlets, advertisement behind buses expenses relating to promotional events etc. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Casio India Ltd [2011] 335 ITR 196 (Del) and CIT Vs. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FIN. LTD. [2011] 335 ITR 29 (Del) hold that the expenditure on publicity and advertisement is to be treated as Revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred. The assessee’s case is squarely covered by these judgments as well as the judgment of Gujrat High Court in case of DEPUTY C…