2012 (10) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of advertisement and promotion expenses - Held that - I.T.A.T has already held that Section 37(2A) which was omitted by Finance Act, 1992 with effect from 1st April, 1993, has no effect and the Assessee was entitled to the benefit under Section 37(2A) of the I.T.Act. no error was committed by the I.T.A.T. in the impugned order - in favour of assessee. Disallowance of gifts and articles - Held that - There was Company s official rubber stamp on gift articles, therefore, the gift articles were for the purpose of incentive for promotion of the business. There was element of advertisement in distribution of these gift articles, therefore, the Assessee was entitled to the benefit - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of claim on advertisement and promotion expenditures.
2. Disallowance of expenses incurred on gifts and articles distributed.
3. Claim on entertainment expenditure.
4. Application of Section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an order passed by the I.T.A.T. regarding the disallowance of the claim of the assessee on advertisement and promotion expenditures. The court framed a question regarding the Tribunal setting aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and C.I.T.(Appeals) without considering the lack of details provided by the assessee. The appellant challenged the finding of the I.T.A.T. related to the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 8,24,007 incurred on gifts and articles distributed to various persons, including employees.

2. The I.T.A.T. held that the gift articles, although lacking a Company Logo, had the Company's official rubber stamp, indicating they were for business promotion. The I.T.A.T. concluded that the assessee was entitled to benefits related to these gift articles, except for a specific amount disowned by the assessee during income computation. The Tribunal considered the element of advertisement in the distribution of gift articles, affirming the assessee's entitlement to benefits.

3. Regarding the claim on entertainment expenditure, the assessee had claimed Rs.5,39,343, but the C.I.T.(Appeal) allowed only a statutory deduction of Rs.5,000. The I.T.A.T. directed the application of Section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing its relevance post the Finance Act, 1992, effective from April 1, 1993. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for necessary computation based on Section 37(2A).

4. The court opined that the issues concerning gift articles used for business promotion and the application of Section 37(2A) were factual determinations made by the I.T.A.T. The omission of Section 37(2A) by the Finance Act, 1992, did not impact the assessee's entitlement to benefits under the said section. The court found no error in the I.T.A.T.'s order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision.