9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 - A.D. Jain, K.D. Ranjan, JJ. Surjan Mohanty, Sr. DR, for the Appellant Kapil Goel, CA, for the Respondent ORDER K.D. Ranjan: 1. This appeal of the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2003-04 arises out of the order of Ld. CIT(A) XXIII, New Delhi. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: "1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT(A) is wrong, perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law which is liable to be set aside. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on a/c of advertisement expenses. 3) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. The assessee had earned subscription revenue at Rs. 37.49 lacs @ 15% on Rs. 2.78 crores. Therefore, the advertising expenses of Rs. 2.37 crore was incurred against the advertising revenue of Rs. 2.78 crores. However, the A.O. rejected the contention of the assessee and computed the expenses allocable to 85% of income of advertising sales commission at Rs. 67.15lacs and disallowed the same. 3. On appeal, it was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) in the Assessment Year 2002-03 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue has been dismissed. Hence the A.O. was not justified in disallowing advertisement expenses. In view of these facts, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the relief. 4. Before us, Ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought out that it was the obligation of the assessee to promote these channels. Thus, the disallowance was made by the A.O. without appreciating the factual position. It is not the case of the A.O. that the advertisement expenditure incurred by the assessee were either not genuine or unsupported by vouchers. In view of the findings of Ld. CIT(A) which have not been controverted, we see no justification to interfere in the same. This ground of appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed." 6. Since the issue is covered by the decision of ITAT in the assessee's own case and the Revenue has not brought on record any contrary evidence that the facts are not similar to that of Assessment Year 2002-03. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign currency to its employees, which at the end of business trip was surrendered and on that account loss has been incurred by the assessee. The loss is on revenue account and has actually been incurred. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the same, we decline to interfere. This ground of the Revenue is also dismissed." 10. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and since the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the decision of ITAT, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. 11. The next issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition on account of provision for gratuity. The A.O. while comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied, the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which liability should have to be discharged is not certain. In the case before us, the provision has been made on the basis of Actuarial Certificate. Therefore, the provisions made cannot be treated for an unascertained liability. Therefore, the provisions made on accounts of ascertained liability cannot be added under clause (c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
