9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 768 - AT - Income TaxHeavy expenditure incurred on brand promotion as allowable expenses in one year or it should be deferred next 3 years also. - Held that - Making of an entry or absence of an entry does not determine the allowability or otherwise of the item of expenditure and the same can not be considered to be a factor adverse if the expenditure is otherwise of allowable nature. - decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether brand promotion expenses should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure or allowable as revenue expenditure in the year incurred. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Brand Promotion Expenses: - Facts and Background: The assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling tea, incurred significant expenses on brand promotion amounting to Rs. 6,82,43,142/- during the Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04. In its return, the company claimed the entire amount as allowable revenue expenditure, although it had deferred Rs. 6,36,73,030/- over three years in its books of accounts. - Assessing Officer's (AO) Decision: The AO disallowed the deferred amount of Rs. 6,36,73,030/-, arguing that the company could not claim the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure in the return while deferring it in the books. The AO treated the expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure, to be written off over three years, and added it back to the assessee's income. - CIT(A)'s Decision: On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee, noting that the AO did not dispute the nature of the expenditure as revenue or its incurrence during the year. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC), which held that the concept of "enduring benefit" must adapt to the changing economic realities of business. - Revenue's Appeal: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the CIT(A) should have considered the treatment of the expenditure in the books and the potential distortion of the financial picture if the entire amount were allowed in one year. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee contended that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes and should be treated as revenue expenditure, citing several judgments that supported the allowance of such expenses irrespective of their treatment in the books. - Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the nature of the expenditure as revenue was not disputed by the revenue authorities. It was noted that making or absence of an entry in the books does not determine the allowability of an expenditure. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, including CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., CIT vs. Sakthi Soyas Ltd., and DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd., which supported the view that advertisement and brand promotion expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year they are incurred. The Tribunal concluded that there was no creation of any tangible or intangible asset with the incurred expenditure, and there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to classify revenue expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the brand promotion expenses as revenue expenditure, rejecting the revenue's grounds. 2. Consistency in Treatment for Subsequent Assessment Year (AY 2004-05): - Facts and Background: The revenue also appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2004-05, where similar issues regarding the treatment of brand promotion expenses were involved. - Tribunal's Decision: Both parties agreed that the facts and issues were identical to those in AY 2003-04. Following the rationale and findings from the earlier year, the Tribunal held that the brand promotion expenses incurred by the assessee were allowable as revenue expenditure for AY 2004-05 as well. 3. Assessee's Appeal Withdrawal (AY 2003-04): - Assessee's Request: The assessee requested to withdraw its appeal for AY 2003-04. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the assessee's appeal, treating it as dismissed. Final Order: - All appeals by the revenue were dismissed. - The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. - The order was pronounced in the open court on 12.2.2010.
|
