Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 742 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance on advertising expenses and professional expenses including Branding expenses - allowable revenue - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (10) TMI 828 - ITAT CHENNAI] AO is not expected to question the necessity of the expenditure. The brand expenditure is nothing but business promotion expenditure which is Revenue in nature and which is clearly allowed as deduction - Decided in favour of assessee. Delayed employees contribution towards PF - whether contribution remitted before the due date of filing of the return u/s.139(1) - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on trade mark - HELD THAT:-This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case [2019 (10) TMI 828 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein held that law is settled to the extent that it is outside the domain of the ld. AO to question the necessity of incurring an expenditure. Thus the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer that the transaction for purchase of trademark are not genuine cannot stand test of the law. Furthermore, it is an settled principle of law that intangible assets such as trademark, goodwill are also qualifies for depreciation at prescribed rates. We do not concur with the views of the lower authorities in disallowing the claim for depreciation on trademark. ‘Cessation of liability’ u/s 41(1) - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the above that the very same AO allowed the write off of M/s.Rocky Marketing (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., in its hands. Therefore, M/s.Rocky Marketing (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., has waived off the liability from the assessee’s hand. As per the explanation extracted, supra, the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral Act, is covered u/s.41(1) and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, corresponding grounds of the assessee fail.
|