9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The deduction of advertisement expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Summary: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction of advertisement expenditure for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The question at hand was whether the expenditure incurred for placing neon-signs for advertisement would be deductible. The Tribunal had disallowed the deduction, considering the installations as assets of enduring nature and hence capital expenditure. The Court reframed the question to focus on whether the expenditure should be disallowed based on the nature of the expenditure or allowed as advertisement expenditure under section 37(3) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the nature of the expenditure, whether capital or revenue, is irrelevant when considering deduction under section 37(3) for advertisement expenses. The Tribunal had not taken into account the specific provisions of section 37(3), which allow for deduction of expenditure on advertisement notwithstanding the considerations of section 37(1). The Court highlighted that the use of the non obstante clause in section 37(3) excludes the considerations of section 37(1) and establishes a separate head of deduction for advertisement expenses. Therefore, the deduction for advertisement expenditure should be granted based on the conditions and restrictions outlined in section 37(3) itself, without delving into the nature of the expenditure. In conclusion, the Court directed the matter to be sent back to the Tribunal for appropriate consideration in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the expenditure on advertisement should be treated as such under section 37(3) without the need to determine its capital or revenue nature.
|
