2020 (6) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 11,41,12,337/- incurred on advertisement and sales promotion of product, brand promotion, development of market and customer relations made by the Assessing Officer (the AO) being capital in nature, by ignoring a fact that the expenditure was incurred on development of various intangibles as defined under subclause (a), (f) and (I) of clause (ii) of Explanation below subsection( 2) of Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 11,41,12,337/- incurred on development of intangibles by overlooking provisions of Clause (II) of Explanation below sub-section (2) of Section 92B of the Act r.w.s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred in the initial stage of the commencement of the business of the assessee and it is going to give enduring and long term benefits to the assessee. Thus, it is capital in nature. The Ld. DR further submitted that the depreciation cannot be allowed in the present case as the same is not coming under the purview of specified intangibles. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in allowing the appeal of the assessee and the assessment order be upheld. 6. The Ld. AR submitted the chart showing brief history of advertisement and sales promotion expenses as claimed by the assessee and treatment accorded by Revenue as under:- S No. Assessment Year Expenditure claimed in P & L Account Assessment Order u/s 143(3) and status .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8) held as under: "The question of law urged in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Revenue is with respect to the correctness of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision that Rs. 9,37,29,000/-, which had been disallowed from the sales promotion expenditures by the Assessing Officer (AO), fell in the revenue stream rather than the capital stream. The assessee was engaged in the business of publication of newspaper and periodicals; its revenue is derived from the sale of publication and advertisements published in such newspapers. The assessee claimed expenditure to the tune of Rs. 18.82 crores as sales promotion expenses. Justifying such expenses, the assessee relied upon various heads .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X