9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 50 or below, the ITO was of the view that the value of such articles could be allowed as a deduction. The balance of Rs. 32,465 was sought to be disallowed because they represented articles of value of more than Rs. 50 per article. The assessee claimed that these were nothing more than discounts in kind inasmuch as the assessee had a sales promotion scheme under which the assessee gave away watches and time pieces depending upon the offtake. It is on this basis the articles were given. Details of the scheme and the details of the articles given away with the names of the parties were filed. The ITO was of the view that the expenditure on these articles was clearly in the nature of advertisement and, therefore, not to be allowed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 982] wherein the amount in excess of Rs. 50 was also allowed by this Tribunal following an earlier decision in IT Appeal Nos. 1027 and 1029 (Hyd.) of 1982, dated 29-4-1983. In the latter order (to which one of us was a party), the question as to what constitutes advertisement was discussed in the following words : " 'Advertisement' according to Concise Oxford Dictionary is 'public announcement (esp. in newspapers, or posters, by television, etc.) ; advertising....... Advertise' has been similarly defined to mean 'generally or publicly known ; (esp.) describe (goods), publicity with a view to increasing sales ; notify... '. Meaning assigned in other dictionaries are not different. Though dictionaries need not always be the sole or a reliab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only an abatement for bulk orders. Any other view would ignore the realities of commercial transactions and lay undue emphasis on mere nomenclature. Merely because the assessee's name is engraved in the article, it does not become advertisement expenditure. We are, therefore, of the view that the expenditure on suit cases and brief cases shared by the assessee under a scheme to be given to only those who have taken the prescribed quantities could not be treated as advertisement expenses. Hence, there is no case for disallowance of Rs. 25,818 (Rs. 24,453 and Rs. 1,365). It is also possible to have the view that share of cost of the 'gifts' enjoined under schemes sponsored by the principals was, in substance, an abatement of commission ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
