2019 (5) TMI 305 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of advertisement expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the materials produced before the Assessing Officer would clearly reveal that there was no dispute with regard to the works in relation to the publicity effected. In so far as there is no dispute as to the publicity effected and so far as the payment was effected through crossed cheques and since all these cheques have been encashed, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where interference is to be made with the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal. See APOLLO TYRES LIMITED 2019 (4) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT Loss sustained on sale of NHPC bonds - HELD THAT - Almost similar question was raised in M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD. 2019 (4) TMI 294 - KERALA HIGH COURT where it was in respect of IRFC bonds. The question was answered against the Revenue - question itself is not factually correct. The facts and figures have been meticulously analysed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference in terms of Section 260A

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against Annexure-C order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1989-90.
2. Allowance of claim regarding advertisement expenses.
3. Allowance of claim regarding loss on sale of NHPC Bonds.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court pertains to the challenge against the Annexure-C order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1989-90. The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of tyres, flaps, and tubes, had filed a return for the said assessment year. The assessment was initially finalized by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), and subsequently before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the Annexure-C order, granted some reliefs to the assessee, which is the subject of challenge in this appeal.

The appellant raised substantial questions of law concerning the allowance of the claim regarding advertisement expenses and the claim regarding the loss on the sale of NHPC Bonds. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties. Regarding the advertisement expenses, it was noted that there was no dispute regarding the publicity works carried out by the assessee, and the payments were made through crossed cheques which were duly encashed. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision on this matter.

Concerning the loss sustained by the assessee on the sale of NHPC Bonds, a similar issue had been addressed previously in another case related to IRFC bonds. The Tribunal had meticulously analyzed the facts and figures related to this issue, leading to the conclusion that the second question raised by the appellant was not factually correct. The High Court, after thorough consideration, found no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision on both the advertisement expenses and the loss on the sale of NHPC Bonds.