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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Segram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2004-05 AY: 2005-06 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., vs Dy. CIT, Vice President Corporate Floor 5, Circle 8(1), New Delhi. Tower A, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., Circle 14(1), New Delhi New Delhi. AY: 2004-05 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, vs M/s Seagram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.), 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, N…

Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2004-05 AY: 2005-06 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., vs Dy. CIT, Vice President Corporate Floor 5, Circle 8(1), New Delhi. Tower A, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., Circle 14(1), New Delhi New Delhi. AY: 2004-05 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, vs M/s Seagram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.), 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, N…

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

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2004-05 AY: 2005-06 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., vs Dy. CIT, Vice President Corporate Floor 5, Circle 8(1), New Delhi. Tower A, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., Circle 14(1), New Delhi New Delhi. AY: 2004-05 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, vs M/s Seagram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.), 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, N…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2004-05 AY: 2005-06 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., vs Dy. CIT, Vice President Corporate Floor 5, Circle 8(1), New Delhi. Tower A, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., Circle 14(1), New Delhi New Delhi. AY: 2004-05 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, vs M/s Seagram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.), 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, N…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. A Circle-6(1), F- 26, Connaught Place New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafcm1533J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…eme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co.Ltd vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1; • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co.Ltd versus CIT reported in 177 ITR 377; • Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Casio India Ltd., Reported in 335 ITR 196; • Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Citi Financial consumer Fin. Ltd., Reported in 335 ITR 29; • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT versus Geoferry manners and company Ltd reported in 315 ITR 134; 10. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of record placed before us and decisions relied upon b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Distribution Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal and Assessee’s Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S Spice Distribution Ltd. Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, 60-D, Street No. C-5, Cr Building, New Delhi Sainik Farms, New Delhi - 62 (Pan: Aabch8481N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 12/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 4281/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Spice Distribution Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 9(1), S Global Knowledge Park Room No. 163, Cr Bldg.,New Delhi 191 & 19B, Sector-125, Noida (Up) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Smt. Anima Bernwal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Rohit Garg, Advocate

…for obtaining a benefit a benefit of an enduring nature may nevertheless be on the revenue account in which case the test of enduring benefit would break down fully supports the view taken. Similarly the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Cosio India Ltd 335 ITR 196 referred 10 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 A ct. The Jurisdictional High court therein considering the appeal of the Revenue in rega…

Ge Capital Services India vs. Addl CIT Range 2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…as held that the claim of the Revenue that the revenue expense should be deferred in the absence of a statutory' provision or spread over some years cannot be accepted. In the case of Commissioner of Income" Tax vs. Casio India Ltd. MANUIDE12405120II : (2011) 335 ITR 196 (Del.), reference was made to the decision in the case of Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (supra). It was held that the expenditure incurred on investment and sale promotion was business expenditure U/S 37( 1) of Page 22 of 40 I.T.A .No.-2808 & 2898/Del/2007 the Act and the concept of deferred revenue expenditure should not be accepted at th…

DCIT Circle 12 (1) vs. G.E. Capital Services India

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…as held that the claim of the Revenue that the revenue expense should be deferred in the absence of a statutory' provision or spread over some years cannot be accepted. In the case of Commissioner of Income" Tax vs. Casio India Ltd. MANUIDE12405120II : (2011) 335 ITR 196 (Del.), reference was made to the decision in the case of Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (supra). It was held that the expenditure incurred on investment and sale promotion was business expenditure U/S 37( 1) of Page 22 of 40 I.T.A .No.-2808 & 2898/Del/2007 the Act and the concept of deferred revenue expenditure should not be accepted at th…

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

…It is an expenditure of trading nature. The aforesaid aspect has been highlighted by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Salora International Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Casio India Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 196.” 22. Referring to the said legal position, this Court recently, in CIT Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited, ITA No. 603/2014 decided on 29.09.2014, observed :- “16. … Section 145 postulates that accounts should give true and fair picture of the financial position or the income of the assessee. It is further noticeable that…

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

…urred for obtaining a benefit of an enduring nature may nevertheless be on the revenue account in which case the test of enduring benefit 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 r…

CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd

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

…se." 6. It was held that the claim of the Revenue that the revenue expense should be deferred in the absence of a statutory provision or spread over some years cannot be accepted. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Casio India Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 196 (Del.), reference was made to the decision in the case of Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (supra). It was held that the expenditure incurred on investment and sale promotion was business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and the concept of deferred revenue expenditure should not be accepted at the behest of the Revenue. 7. We…

CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd

…se." 6. It was held that the claim of the Revenue that the revenue expense should be deferred in the absence of a statutory provision or spread over some years cannot be accepted. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Casio India Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 196 (Del.), reference was made to the decision in the case of Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (supra). It was held that the expenditure incurred on investment and sale promotion was business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and the concept of deferred revenue expenditure should not be accepted at the behest of the Revenue. 7. We…