9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 513 - AT - Income TaxCapital receipt or Revenue receipt - Entertainment tax subsidy - CIT held it as capital receipt - Held that - Ld. CIT (A) in the year before us, has deleted the disallowance by observing that similar additions for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 were deleted by the CIT (A) by referring to, inter alia, Ponni Sugar (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) and that the facts and circumstances in the years under consideration were similar to those in the earlier years. This has not been disputed - Decided against Revenue. Capitalization of advertisement expenses - enduring nature - CIT deleted the addition on account of capitalization of advertisement expenses - Held that - Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition on merits and it is therefore, that he has not gone into the alternative issue raised by the assessee. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of entertainment tax subsidy. 2. Deletion of addition on account of capitalization of advertisement expenses. 3. Alternative issue relating to deduction of entertainment tax under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Entertainment Tax Subsidy The primary issue involved the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance of Entertainment Tax Subsidy, which the assessee had deducted from the total income. The AO treated the subsidy as a revenue receipt, arguing it was assistance for carrying out business operations, not linked to any fixed assets, and thus on revenue account. The AO relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd.' and 'CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.' The CIT (A) deleted the addition, referencing the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years (Assessment Year 2006-07), where the subsidy was held to be capital in nature. The Tribunal reiterated that the purpose of the subsidy was to promote the cinema industry by encouraging the construction of multiplexes, which is a capital expenditure. The Tribunal found the issue covered in favor of the assessee by the previous decision, where it was held that the subsidy was capital in nature due to its purpose of promoting long-term operational multiplexes. The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming that the subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Capitalization of Advertisement Expenses The second issue pertained to the AO's disallowance of advertisement and sale promotion expenses, which were capitalized and restricted to 1/5th of the total expenses. The AO's decision was based on the enduring benefit derived from these expenses. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, following the first appellate orders for previous years (Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08). The Tribunal, in its earlier decision, had held that advertisement expenses should be allowed in the year of incurrence, referencing several High Court decisions that support this view. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal, affirming that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and should be allowed in full in the year they were incurred. The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal on this ground as well. 3. Alternative Issue Relating to Deduction of Entertainment Tax Under Section 43B The assessee's Cross Objections raised an alternative issue regarding the deduction of entertainment tax under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (A) had not decided on this issue since the primary addition was deleted on merits. The Tribunal, having upheld the CIT (A)'s order on the primary issue, found the Cross Objections rendered infructuous. Therefore, the alternative issue was not addressed. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed both the department's appeals and the assessee's Cross Objections. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s deletion of additions on account of disallowance of entertainment tax subsidy and capitalization of advertisement expenses, finding both issues covered by previous decisions in favor of the assessee. The alternative issue raised in the Cross Objections was rendered moot.
|
