2017 (8) TMI 1553 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure on advertisements being treated as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT - The Court is not inclined to frame a question of law on this issue since the impugned order of the ITAT on this aspect suffers from no legal infirmity. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - The said issue stands answered by this Court against the Revenue by the order in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Nilgiri Infrastructure Development Ltd. 2016 (2) TMI 1229 - DELHI HIGH COURT Accordingly, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. Treatment of expenditure on advertisements as revenue expenditure.
3. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D.
4. Transfer pricing adjustment.

Analysis:

1. Delay in re-filing the appeal:
The High Court condoned the delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application. The Court disposed of the application, allowing the appeal to proceed despite the delay.

2. Treatment of expenditure on advertisements as revenue expenditure:
The Revenue raised this issue in the appeal, but the Court declined to frame a question of law on this issue. The Court found that the impugned order of the ITAT did not have any legal infirmity regarding the treatment of expenditure on advertisements as revenue expenditure.

3. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D:
The Revenue also contested the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. However, the Court referred to a previous order dated 16th February, 2016, in a different case where a similar issue was addressed. The Court ruled against the Revenue based on the previous order and declined to frame a question on this issue as well.

4. Transfer pricing adjustment:
The Court issued notice limited to the question of transfer pricing adjustment, which is returnable on 22nd November, 2017. This issue was specifically highlighted for further examination, indicating its significance and the need for detailed consideration in the appeal process.