9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs out of advertisement expenses. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 2,60,540 as speculation loss. Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs out of advertisement expenses The assessee claimed Rs. 2,55,500 towards advertisement expenses, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 2 lakhs, treating it as donations rather than genuine advertisement expenses. The AO noted that the payments were made for advertisements in souvenirs and not in newspapers or hoardings, implying a donation motive. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance but allowed for deductions under section 80G for eligible donations. Upon appeal, the Tribunal examined the details and found that the Board's Circular No. 200, dated June 28, 1976, clarifies that no distinction should be made between advertisement expenditures in souvenirs and other types. The Tribunal referred to the Calcutta High Court's decision in British Electrical & Pumps (P.) Ltd v. CIT, which held that section 37(1) does not consider the motive behind advertisement expenditures if they are for business purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was incorrect in distinguishing between different types of advertisements. However, it agreed that some expenses were indeed donations disguised as advertisement costs. After examining the records, the Tribunal decided that Rs. 50,000 out of the total claimed expenses of Rs. 2,55,500 should be disallowed as inadmissible expenditure. The order was modified accordingly. The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's alternative plea for deduction under section 80G for donations. It found that the assessee did not provide specific claims or evidence for such deductions, rendering the plea vague and unentertainable. Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 2,60,540 as speculation loss The assessee reported a loss of Rs. 2,60,540 from gunny and jute transactions, claiming it as a hedging loss. The AO treated it as a speculative loss under section 43(5) of the Act since the contracts were settled by paying the price difference without actual delivery of goods. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and found that the transactions were settled by paying the difference between the contract price and market price on the due date, without actual delivery of goods. According to section 43(5), such transactions are speculative unless they fall within specific exceptions, like hedging contracts meant to guard against future price fluctuations in actual delivery contracts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove that the transactions were hedging contracts. The assessee's claim that the transactions were settled to fulfill a contract with the Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals did not demonstrate that they were entered to guard against price fluctuations. The Tribunal cited relevant case law, including CIT v. Shantilal (P.) Ltd. and CIT v. Pioneer Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., to support its conclusion that the transactions were speculative. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to prove the transactions were hedging, which was not discharged. The Tribunal upheld the AO's treatment of the loss as speculative, not hedging, and decided against the assessee on this issue. Conclusion: The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal modified the disallowance of advertisement expenses to Rs. 50,000 and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,60,540 as speculation loss.
|
