|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1011 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1183 - ITAT KOLKATA
|
Disallowance of Cash Purchases u/s 40A(3) - Assessee made purchases against which payments were made in cash exceeding 20,000 rupees at a time - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance - Contention was assessee, being old lady had made payments due to business expediency and on such ground disallowance should not be made - HELD THAT:- In the relevant assessment year, as per Rule 6DD, there is no such exception provided to section 40A(3) of the Act that the assessee could make cash payment of ₹ 20,000/- or more at a time due to business exigencies. The circumstances under which the provisions of section 40A(3) will not be applicable, where payment in cash is more than ₹ 20,000/- is provided in Rule 6DD and the ground of business expediency has been deleted by the Amendment made by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 01.04.1996.
In the case before us, there is no dispute to the fact that assessee had made purchases against which the payments were made in cash exceeding 20,000 rupees at a time - authorities are justified to make disallowance @ 20% of cash purchases. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) - Decision against Assessee.
|
| |
-
2011 (7) TMI 1182 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... deduction u/s. 80HHC is to be computed on the basis of the profit of this year before set off of carry forward loss. The assessee also contended that deduction u/s. 80HHC is required to be computed based upon the book profit computed u/s. 115JB. According to the assessee the CIT(A) erred in confirming the calculation of profit on export turnover, for the purpose of book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. In our opinion, the above ground is covered in earlier para No. 19 of this order in I.T.A. No. 809/Hyd/08 wherein we placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd., vs. CIT (327 ITR 305) and decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 54. In the result, assessee appeals in I.T.A. Nos. 236, 845/09 and 1462/Hyd/2010 are allowed and 1072/Hyd/04 is partly allowed. Revenue’s appeals in I.T. A. Nos. 809/Hyd/08, 935 and 936/Hyd/08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd concluded that though total number of turn over of assessee in shares was very high, yet presumption can be drawn from all the facts and circumstances that it did not intend to deal in shares. 12.The Tribunal after detailed examination of this issue, concluded that the assesseerespondent discharged the onus that it has got shares registered in its name, and therefore, it was for the Revenue to dislodge this fact that inspite of shares being transferred/ registered in the name of assessee, the assessee was still dealing in shares. In absence of any adequate material, it was of the view that assessee cannot be regarded as a trader in shares particularly when its main business was of manufacturing the detergent cakes. Sound and cogent reasons have been given by the Tribunal, which are quite elaborate and need no reproduction . Further, there is no fault found in the said reasonings and this issue also calls for no interference. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1180 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of interest and capital expenditure - Documents seized during the course of search - business by way of bogus unsecured loan - Income from undisclosed sources on receipt of money - deleting the addition u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- In present case, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in respect of Fort Royal projects for asst. yr. 2007-08. In regard to Revenue's appeals, additions made by AO on account of on-money receipts for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06 were also deleted by CIT(A) with the finding that since assessments for these years had already been completed under s. 143(3) before the date of search and nothing incriminating was found in course of search or survey in respect of receipt of on-money for these years, completed assessments for these years could not be disturbed and no addition on account of 'on-money' could be made merely on the basis of change of opinion. As the Revenue could not controvert the same.
THAT, no incriminating material or documents were found in course of the search or survey action with respect to the allowability or otherwise of the expenditure or interest expenses for any of the years under consideration. In the original assessments framed under s. 143(3) of the Act for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06, the AO after application of mind and detailed scrutiny of accounts had consciously allowed said expenses and interest On loan. However, later on while framing assessments u/s 144/153C for the said years, under identical circumstances vis-a-vis past, the AO opined that a part of such expenses and interest should have been capitalized to WIP. Accordingly, the same was added back by the AO u/s 144/153C merely on the basis of change of opinion in the guise of search assessment. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition. Accordingly, these two common issues of Revenue's appeals in IT(SS)A Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21/Kol/2011 are dismissed.
THAT, AO alleged that the assessee company was specifically asked for explanation but had not complied. Thus, the said sum of Rs.,10 lacs was added as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. we find that the allegations and so-called findings of AO serve no purpose as far as assessee is concerned. The AO has observed that 'few layers' had been identified with regard to the source of ₹ 10 lacs received from Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. but has not given any details regarding such layers. Further, the AO has failed to prove by bringing on record some cogent evidence that this amount of ₹ 10 lacs had actually been deposited by assessee company directly or indirectly through intermediaries into the account of Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. and as such, represented income from undisclosed sources of the assessee. it has successfully proved genuineness and source of loan by furnishing the requisite evidences in the form of IT return and financial statements of Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. evidencing receipt of loan for the relevant year and also confirmation of the said party. In view of these facts and circumstances, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1179 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as justified in disallowing expenditure on salary and other expenses amounting to ₹ 32,46,000/- even though the said expenditure was recorded in the books of account in the course of audit and hence had been verified ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing expenses incurred by the appellant in the normal course of its business of ₹ 5,84,57,868/- and treating them as work in progress to be allowed in future on some basis which is unsustainable in law ? 2. Mr. Kazi waives for the respondent.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1178 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... y error pointed out that hospital was though constructed but was not handed over to the government but to another trust. We feel small error has crept into the order of the Tribunal because the fact that hospital was handed over to a trust and the fact has been again brought on record by way of affidavit of the trustee of Shri Pukhraj C. Bafna. Therefore, we substitute the earlier para 6 of the order of the Tribunal by the following para “6. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned DIT(E) and remit the matter back to his file for consideration of this issue particularly after verifying the fact that assessee has really constructed the school which was given to the government for running and also the hospital which is claimed to have been given to a trust for running. After verification of this facts, certificate u/s.80 G should be granted.” 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 1st July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1177 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sallow that much of the expenditure. The remaining amount of addition was deleted. 16. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record it is noticed that there was no default on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source except an amount of ₹ 1,866 representing education cess on the amount of tax deducted at source to the tune of ₹ 93,305 which was deposited in time. In any case it is only a sum of ₹ 1,866 which remained to be deducted at source and deposited to the Government exchequer. In our considered opinion the learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to calculate the amount of expenditure disallowable with reference to the total amount of tax deducted at source of ₹ 1,866 as having been not paid. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. This ground is not allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1176 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... only on account of accumulation of Cenvat credit on export of goods cleared under bond under certain conditions. In the instant case, no such situation exits and therefore it cannot be said that the payment of ₹ 75 lacs by the applicant by utilizing the Cenvat credit of another unit is revenue neutral. 15. The applicant is therefore directed to make payment of ₹ 75 lacs as settled by the Commission by cash or by utilization of the Cenvat credit amount if available in his own factory account immediately. The interest liability will also have to be recalculated accordingly by the Jurisdictional Commissioner and be informed to the applicant who should pay the same within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Sd/- (K.C. Singh) Member 16. In view of the dissenting opinion by learned Member, Shri K.C. Singh, the majority views prevail in terms of provisions of Section 32D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (H.O. Tewari) Vice-Chairman
-
2011 (7) TMI 1175 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the opinion that there is no scope for penalty. 6. The CIT(A) has tried to justify that assessee was aware about the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee should have offered the income under house property. It is not possible to apply the principles to every situation as made out by the CIT(A) while confirming the penalty in this case. There can be genuine difference of opinion in appreciating the principles of law but it does not mean that assessee deliberately tried to conceal the income. Under the facts of the present case there is no scope for considering that there is concealment of income. In the same way, there is no case for furnishing inaccurate particulars as all the details including the agreement were placed on record. Therefore, we have no hesitation in cancelling the penalty. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th July 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1174 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... .There are facts which are required to be examined. Though they have been duly examined by the Tribunal, there is no reference to those facts in the judgment of the High Court. Whether rent was understated? Whether rent was brought down by interest free deposit, bank guarantees etc.?Whether the entire arrangement stood entered to evade taxes? Whether the arrangement was a sham? The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration on the facts as also on law. The civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1173 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re set-aside. This is without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law, after supplying necessary materials. If the respondents wish to proceed further from the stage of issuance of show cause notice, they would supply necessary documents to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” In the result, present petition is also allowed. The impugned Order dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs is quashed. Restrictions imposed on the petitioner are set-aside. It would be, however, open for the respondents to proceed further from the stage of supplying necessary documents to the petitioners, which may be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After supplying such documents and permitting the petitioners to file further reply within reasonable time, it would be open for the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1172 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, cited supra, wherein depreciation on the intangible assets, viz. non-competing fee and payment made for acquiring right over marketing net work was allowed by the Tribunal. We, being in agreement, with the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in assessee’s own case, cited above, and the issue before the Tribunal in that case being identical with the issue before us in the present appeal, decide the issue in favour of the assessee and the ground of appeal No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 5. No arguments were addressed on the issue of credit of tax payment and interest under S.234B of the Act raised in ground of appeal No.3 by the assessee before us. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is rejected. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 8.7.2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1171 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of Expenditure u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - A.O. observed that the assessee earned some amount as dividend from investments in shares. The assessee claimed that it did not incur any expenditure for earning tax-free dividend income - AO disallowed such amount, following the judgement of INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (2) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (P.) LTD. [2008 (10) TMI 383 - ITAT MUMBAI] - CIT(A), also confirmed such disallowance.
HELD THAT:- We find that as per decision of Hon’ble. Bombay High Court in the case of GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Rule 8D is prospective in nature and is applicable for and from assessment year 2008-09, whereas we are concerned with assessment year 2006-07. Considering the above submissions of the ld. counsel and after perusing the orders of the authorities below, we hold that the authorities below were not justified to apply Rule 8D of the Rules for the purpose of making disallowance u/s. 14A as the dividend income shown by the assessee is exempt from tax u/s. 10(34). Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that it will be reasonable to make disallowance @ 1% of the above dividend income earned. We direct the A.O. to calculate the disallowance of expenditure on such exempt income accordingly.
Admission of Additional Grounds - Assessee received subsidy from the govt and he forgot to claim deduction regarding the same. Also, he didn't raise this ground before concerned authorities - HELD THAT:- We observe that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [1990 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the first appellate authority can admit an additional ground when the ground raised was bona fide.
We further observe that NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the power of ITAT in admitting an additional ground held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also.
On the basis of the decisions referred, we, therefore, restore the matter back to the A.O. and we direct him to examine the facts of the case and thereafter he should re-adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Disallowance on account of claim of deduction of proportionate of leasehold land written off - Assessee made a claim of amortization benefit on expenditure on acquisition of land for mining of raw material or cement production - AO denied, according to decision of ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISES VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2006 (12) TMI 138 - SC ORDER] - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the A.O
HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is required to pay compensation as determined by the local authority/court to the persons whose rights are infringed because of the mining activity. We also observe that ld. C.I.T.(A) has properly analyzed the facts of the present case and distinguished the facts decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT and then only has come to a conclusion that the compensation was paid for the damaged caused on the infringement of right of the land owner. He has also analyzed that the payments are progressively distributed as they work, as they proceed year by year, going on with their work and the payments are in the nature of incidental expenditure to conduct the mine and the business operations. He, therefore, held that the payment of compensation to persons whose rights are infringed by the mining activity is revenue in nature. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. C.I.T.(A) on this issue and confirmed the same.
Sales Tax Subsidy - CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. on account of sales tax subsidy received by the assessee as revenue income - HELD THAT:- Since the facts of the assessment year under consideration are identical to those of previous assessment years, we respectfully following the decisions of I.T.A.T. in assessee’s own case of 2006 and 2008, uphold the order of the ld. C.I.T.(A) - Revenue Appeal Rejected.
Profit on sale of plant and machinery of closed down unit - Assessee had reduced the sale proceeds from the written down value of the block of assets and claimed depreciation on such reduced written down value - A.O. allowed depreciation on the written down value without deducting them from the sale proceeds - CIT(A) decided in favour of assessee
HELD THAT:- Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) specifically requires the reduction of the written down value of the block of assets by the money payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold during the previous year. It is evident that the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has pointed out that the accounting treatment cannot effect the operation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 43(6) and for income-tax purposes, the block of assets concept was followed as per statutory provisions. Considering the totality of the above facts and legal position, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the Ld. C.I.T.(A) - Revenue Appeal rejected.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1170 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... different method of valuation was followed made any investment for acquiring the stock n question of coper tubes of 9387.350 kgs. in the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the addition made cannot be sustained. We therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 15,48,913/-. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee in both the years under consideration is allowed”. 5. Having thus perused the orders on record and having heard learned counsel for the revenue, we find that the Tribunal came to the factual finding in favour of the assessee and accepted the explanation of the assessee that the difference between the two values was on account of higher rate adopted by the assessee for showing higher value of the stock to the bank for obtaining higher credit. The discrepancy, thus in view of the Tribunal, was sufficiently explained by the assessee. We are of the opinion that no question of law arises. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1169 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... notice that the assessee has filed confirmation letter from the lessee and in the statement taken from him, the lessee has accepted that he has carried out agricultural operations on the impugned land. The assessing officer has initially accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee. Only in the course of remand proceedings, the assessing officer has recommended for treating the same as non-agricultural income for the reason that the lessee could not produce bills etc. In our view, one cannot expect a small farmer to maintain detailed accounts of his agricultural activities with supporting bills. Hence we do not find any merit in the recommendation made by the assessing officer. Accordingly we find no merit in enhancing the income of the assessee by treating the agricultural income as nonagricultural income. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 4th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1168 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rading Co P Ltd vs 30.1 The ld DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when there is no inordinate delay in granting of refund, then interest granted to the assessee upto the date of intimation is just and proper. 31 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. In this case, the Assessing Officer has computed the interest u/s 244A upto the date of intimation i.e. 28.3.2007 whereas the refund order was passed on 15.6.2007. Therefore, in view of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Bros Investment and Trading Co P Ltd (supra), we allow the claim of the assessee for interest upto the date of granting of refund i.e. 15.6.2007. 32 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the 13th day of July 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1167 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... sed in para 9.01 of the order Rs.19,65,223 (2) Out of remuneration as discussed in para 9.02 of the order. Rs.4,53,836 Rs.24,19,059 Assessed Total Income Rs.33,41,129 i.e. Rs.33,41,130” From the above, it is evident that the AO accepted the income of ₹ 9,22,070/- declared by the assessee as per the statement of income furnished by the assessee. Meaning thereby, the business income of ₹ 9,22,070/- disclosed by the assessee was accepted as it is. In the same income, the AO made further addition. Thus, the entire income was assessed as business income and no income was assessed under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The AO cannot adopt different yardstick for determining allowability of remuneration to partner. We therefore delete the disallowance made by the AO out of remunerations paid to partners. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed while assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 22nd July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1166 - ITAT KOLKATA
Seized Documents were Dumb Documents - Presumption u/s 292C - Rebuttable Presumption u/s 132 - Onus of Rebutting the Presumption - CIT(A) held that seized documents recording purchases and sales of diamonds, gold and paintings are dumb documents and rejected the same by stating - it is for the discretion of the Court to make or not to make the presumption u/s 292C
HELD THAT:- Presumption in context of Sec. 132 - We find that the term 'used' in the provision of sec. 292C, "may be presumed" is discussed, but in the context of sec. 132(4A), by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PR. METRANI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2006 (11) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT] said term implies that the presumption is rebuttable. The provisions of sec. 292C does not confer discretionary power on the Department to presume or not to presume the correctness of seized documents as held by CIT(A).
We are of the view that the provision of Sec. 292 will equally apply to both assessee as well as Department and such section only creates a legal fiction, whereby in case of search and seizure, contents of seized material are presumed to be true unless rebutted by the party claiming contrary.
Onus of rebutting presumption - In present case, since seized documents were found from possession and control of the assessee during the search in his case, a presumption u/s 292C had to be drawn that the said documents belonged to the assessee and the contents thereof were true unless disproved by cogent evidence.
The onus to prove that what was apparent from these books was not real was on the party which claimed it to be so. Thus, the onus was on the Department, to bring on record some acceptable evidence to prove that what was stated in the seized documents did not depict the actual state of affairs. The AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge such onus by bringing on record some cogent evidence to disprove notings in the seized papers.
Documents seized are Dumb Documents or Not? - In the present case, to give a finding that the documents are dumb and such a finding can be reviewed on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or it is perverse. Hence, we consider documents found from the possession of the assessee was real and declaration made by assessee on the basis of entry recorded in these documents of long-term capital gain are true and there is no basis not to accept the same. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by CIT(A) - Decision in favour of Asseessee
Unexplained Investment of Shares - Since we have already held that seized documents are correct financial statements prepared after incorporation the entries from the seized documents are also true explaining the investment in shares. Accordingly, we delete the addition - Decision in favour of Assessee
Addition on account of Unexplained Cash - Since total undisclosed income arising from the seized documents were already offered for taxation by assessee and cash found in course of search stood explained from the entries recorded in seized documents, no separate addition can be made in respect to cash found. We have already accepted the seized documents as genuine documents explaining away the entries, the cash explained by assessee cannot be treated unexplained. Accordingly, this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed.
Addition on account of Undisclosed income - Since we have already accepted seized material as true, automatically the expenditure recorded in these documents is explained and the assessee has also made disclosure to cover up the same. Accordingly, this addition is not warranted and hence, deleted.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1165 - ITAT, MUMBAI
Deduction of TDS as per Section 194C(2) - Two member companies of an AOP entered into a JV, for a project - Only duty entrusted to the AOP was filing of tender regarding such project - After getting the contract these two member companies executed the contract, accordingly, the amount received was shared by them - CIT(A) invoked Sec 194C(2) regarding such amount.
HELD THAT:- While considering the case laws mentioned by Assessee, we observe that, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS. M/S. AMBUJA DARLA KASHLOG MANGU TRANSPORT CO. OP. SOCIETY & OTHERS [2009 (10) TMI 558 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the society is nothing but collective name for the members. The contract entered by the society is for the benefit of the constituent members and there is no contract between its members and society, hence, sec. 194C(2) has no application.
In the present case, the assessee is a AOP of its partners (members) and the role of the AOP is only to secure the contract for the benefit of the members. There was no contract or sub-contract in between them.
Also, the other case referred by Assessee, DATTA DIGAMBAR SAHAKARI KAMGAR SANSTHA LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000 (9) TMI 250 - ITAT PUNE] is taken into consideration. In view of our specific finding that there is no contract or subcontract has existed in between the assessee and its JV partners and following the above judicial precedents, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in invoking section 194C(2) to the assessee's case. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1164 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 30th November 2010. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision rendered by the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT, Ahmedabad v Ashima Synthetic Ltd (citation not given in the impugned order). In the said decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal has considered a number of judgments including Alambic Chemicals Works Co. Ltd.v CIT 177 ITR 377, Madras Industrial Development Corporation 225 ITR 802, Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 and Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v ACIT 91 ITD 2080, Hyderabad etc. We are of the considered opinion that the expenditure incurred on advertisements in the aforesaid manner has to be treated as revenue in the nature and was therefore fully allowable. This issue has been considered by this Court as well in detail in The CIT-V vs. M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.319 /2010 decided on 30th March, 2011. We, thus, find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
............
|
