Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2238 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTExpenses incurred on account of advertisement, publicity and sales promotions - HELD THAT:- Tribunal found such addition to be erroneous. TDS u/s 195 - TDS liability on income accrued outside India - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has considered in detail the nature and expenses in respect of which the assessee was sought to be penalised for not deducting the tax deducted at source, holding that these expenses were in respect of the income accrued outside the territory of India for services rendered. Deduction allowed for writing off advance - Revenue’s stand is that the course followed by the Commissioner or the Tribunal was not permissible, as specific deduction was not claimed in the return - HELD THAT:- There are two authorities of this Court in the cases of Binani Cement Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 849 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 502 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where deduction claimed for the first time before the appellate authority was found to be permissible. Revenue relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT]. However this authority was considered in Britannia Industries Ltd. where it was held that the impermissibility of such a course was confined to the case of the assessing officer only Treatment of writing off amount which was invested by the assessee in a joint venture agreement - The Tribunal allowed deduction of the same as Revenue expenditure. Revenue’s stand on the other hand is that such investment was in capital assets and Revenue’s expenditure ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal following the decision in Binani Cement Ltd [2015 (3) TMI 849 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not find any error of law in such a course being adopted as the point involved is covered in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid authority. Treatment of certain expenses - Unclaimed salary and wages and depreciation were allowed by the two statutory appellate fora - HELD THAT:- There is concurrent finding of fact on the points involved in these questions which cannot be held to be perverse. In our opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition shall stand dismissed.
|