Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 838 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of brand promotion expenses - Allowable revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case[2017 (6) TMI 1374 - ITAT DELHI] we fully concur with the findings of the Id. CIT (Appeals) also because similar recurring expenses incurred in earlier years have been allowed as Revenue expenses. The decisions relied upon by the Id. CIT (Appeals) also strengthen the finding arrived at by him under the facts and circumstances of the present case on the issue. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Empire Jute Company [1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has been pleased to hold that it is only when an enduring advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If advantage of enduring benefit is in the Revenue field it would be on the Revenue account - Decided in favour of assessee. Late deposit of employee provident fund - HELD THAT:- As The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Innovision Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 792 - ITAT DELHI] has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In parity, we see that no error has been committed by the CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. We thus decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Inadvertent mistake as assessee has wrongly offered exempt income received by way of dividend as short term capital gain which is otherwise not taxable in law - CIT-A held that income inadvertently offered as taxable income under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain” is exempt income indeed and not susceptible to taxation - HELD THAT:- CIT(A), in our view, has rightly applied the underlying principles of CBDT Circular No.14 dated 11.04.1955 wherein it was observed that the Department should not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee and collect more tax without the same being due. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party, the relief that he is entitled to. Thus, where the CIT(A) found on facts that the redemption amount of investment also comprises of certain exempt dividend income which has been wrongly offered for capital gain tax, the action of the CIT(A) in granting suitable relief cannot be faulted. In the absence of any rebuttal on facts, we see no reason to interfere with the relief granted by the CIT(A) in accord with law. We thus see no merit in the Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s Appeal.
|