Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1761 - AT - Income TaxAllowance of expenditure as commission - Held that:- There was no basis for making any disallowance and the same was solely on ad hoc basis. We are in agreement with the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the AO had not brought any material on record to show that the commission expenditure was either bogus or was not an allowable deduction. It is well settled law that no ad hoc disallowance can be made unless the AO brings any specific detail on record which may call for any disallowance. Advertisement expenditure allowance on product launches and on granty signs - nature of expenses - Held that:- Expenditure in question was in fact in furtherance of business of assessee and, thus, had direct nexus with its business, and by putting neon signs and glow signs, no assets of permanent nature was created, it was an allowable business expenditure - See CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 622 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Royalty/WPC expenses - nature of income - as per AO royalty, which was paid, in order to get the right to use the spectrum, was capital in nature and allowed 25% of the amount claimed - Held that:- The impugned amount was paid as a protection fee and was not a payment which was necessary for running the business, as is in the present case. The assessee could not run the business without making these payments on quarterly basis and, therefore, by no stretch of reasoning this could be held as capital in nature. The issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fascel Ltd.(2008 (12) TMI 743 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - revenue appeal dismissed.
|