2005 (3) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Advertisement and sale promotion expenses - 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in maintaining disallowance on account of advertisement and sale promotion expenses? 2. Whether the advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the appellant for the purpose of business were rightly disallowed by the Tribunal ignoring past practice? - we are of the opinion that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In other words, we answer the questions by holding that expenses/expenditure incurred by the assessee towards advertisement and sales promotion for the purpose of business are allowable deductions under section 37

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses.
2. Legitimacy of advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee.

Issue 1: Disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses
The case involved an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding the disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses, which was upheld by the Tribunal, leading to the reference. The Tribunal had to consider whether the expenses were legitimately incurred for the business of the firm. The court analyzed section 37(1) of the Act, which allows deductions for expenditures laid out wholly and exclusively for the business or profession. The court emphasized that if the expenditure is related to the business and not of a prohibited nature, it should be allowed as a deduction. The court held that the assessee fulfilled the criteria under section 37(1) and was entitled to claim the deduction for the expenses incurred for advertisement and sales promotion.

Issue 2: Legitimacy of advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee
The court observed that the assessee, a firm engaged in the sale of bidi, had claimed expenses for advertisement and sales promotion. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the expenses, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed them. However, the Tribunal disallowed the expenses again. The court reiterated that as long as the expenditure is related to the business and meets the requirements of section 37(1), it should be allowed as a deduction. The court emphasized that taxing authorities should not question the legitimacy or necessity of the expenditure if it meets the criteria under the law. The court held that the expenses incurred by the assessee for advertisement and sales promotion were allowable deductions under section 37 of the Act for the relevant assessment years, and the Tribunal erred in disallowing them.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenses incurred for advertisement and sales promotion were legitimate business expenditures and should be allowed as deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act.