9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural programme expenses, quota expenses and sales promotion expenses were concerned, since said expenses did not result in creation of any tangible or intangible asset and, moreover, there was no evidence regarding accrual of any specific revenue in years under consideration or subsequently over a defined period with incurring of said expenditure, those expenses could be allowed entirely in year in which they were incurred. In the present case it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has not incurred the expenditure as followed in the case of Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). In favour of assessee - ITA No. 67/Mds/2012 & C.O. No. 19/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2012 - Shri Abraham P. George and Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure represented advertisement expenditure incurred during the year which was deferred for write off over a two year period. The assessee submitted before the AO that the expenditure related to the product launch of Medimix sandal and Medimix dry skin soaps. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee because the benefit of such product launch expenditure is usually spread over a period of more than one year. Therefore, claiming the entire expenditure, the benefit of which is spread over a longer period, as revenue expenditure in the year of incurring such expenditure only for the purpose of computing taxable income was held not to be in order. Since the benefit of expenditure would spread over a span of two years, the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny expenditure not being a capital expenditure or personal expenses laid out or expended fully and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession should be allowed. The CIT(A) finally held that all the above case laws covered the issue involved in this appeal and allowed the claim of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal. The learned DR supported the order passed by the AO. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee re-iterated the submissions which had been made before the learned CIT(A) and further relied on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT v. Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 1 (Ahd)(SB). 6. We have heard both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdictional High Court decisions and other decisions, relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in his order as also the Special Bench decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashima Syntex Ltd. (supra) dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 8. Insofar as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is concerned, we find that the same merely supports the order passed by the learned CIT(A). In view our finding above the cross objection has become infructuous and therefore it is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes, as we have remitted the issue regarding section 14A of the Act back to the file of the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
