TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be investment in nature, which has been rightly shown as capital in nature. This ground is accordingly, allowed in favour of the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of advertisement expenditure - Held that:- the appellant had made a full page advertisement, on 24 March 2008 in the "Business Standards" newspaper, which was clearly in the name of appellant company only and therefore the suspicion of the appellant that it may have been for the purpose of the entire group and not for the appellant company only, was based on incorrect facts. The appellant company therefore, meets all the requirements under section 37(1) of the Act in making claim of the advertisement expenses, which were for the purpose of business promot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income at ₹ 359,40,18,194/-. The return was accompanied by the copies of final accounts and tax audit report u/s. 44AB of the I.T. Act. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.8.2009 which is duly served on the assessee. In response thereof, the Authorised Representative alongwith other officials of the company attended the proceedings and filed the detailed asked for, produced books of accounts which is examined on test checked basis; written submissions of various dates were filed by the Authorised Representative. Thereafter, after considering the above, the Assessing Officer assessed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in shares on behalf of its clients. The appellant has applied for allotment of shares M/s OMAXE Limited through its initial public offer (lPO). The same was entered into the investment register as required under the Companies Act. The appellant held on the investment for over one month after which the same was sold. Other than this transaction, the appellant has not purchased and sold shares for itself in the earlier years also. The appellant has not engaged into trading in shares in its own account on regular basis even in earlier years. The volume, frequency and the manner of solitary transaction shows that appellant does not trade in shares as a regular business activity. Keeping in view the above facts, I find that in terms of the Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 of his impugned order. 7. Regarding the Ground No.3 of the appeal, I find that the Ld. AO has made the disallowance by observing that the appellant had not claimed such expenditure in the immediately preceding year. The Ld. AO has disallowed the same by holding that since the appellant company is one of the main companies having the brand name India Bulls and therefore, it was not ascertainable as to whether the expenditure pertained to the appellant only and to what extent, the appellant has been benefited by the above expenditure. 7.2 On careful consideration, I find that the appellant had made a full page advertisement, on 24 March 2008 in the Business Standards newspaper, which was clearly in the name of appellant com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
