9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g questions of law for our consideration : (A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its Associate Enterprises? (B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on expenditure on 'Corporate Brand' building, treating such expenditure as revenue in nature? 4. Re. Question No.(A) : (a) The RespondentAssessee had given guarantees to various banks on loans advanced to its Associate Enterprises (A.E.). For the purpose of giving this guarantee, the RespondentAsses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same rate of commission was not even examined. The impugned order further records that identical issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years and similar addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission was deleted. These orders of the Tribunal were accepted by the Revenue as no question of law on this issue was raised by the Revenue alluding to the fact that no appeal to the High Court was filed by the Revenue on this issue. (d) Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, very fairly states that the order of the Tribunal for the issue raised herein also arose for the earlier Assessment Years and the decision on this aspect had been accepted. (e) Therefore, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to create/improve a brand would be on capital account. This is in view of the enduring benefit available to the Respondent-Assessee in relation to its brand. It is particularly submitted that amounts received on sale of brand is on capital account and not taxed as Revenue receipts. As also, amount paid to purchase a brand is regarded on capital account. Therefore, the expenditure incurred on brand advertisement cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. (e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT vs. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. 315 ITR 134, wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent-Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
