9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the paper book and delete the addition in dispute by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Salora International Limited [2008 (8) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that expenses incurred for advertisement and sales promotion and brand building are allowable expenses. Adhoc disallowance expenditure (i.e. 10% of the telephone expense and vehicle running and maintenance expenses) and (40% of the festival expenses) - Held that:- The disallowance of 1,24,003/- (10% of the telephone expenses and vehicle running and maintenance expenses) made by AO are without any basis and purely adhoc disallowances made for personal use or vouchers in the hands of the company which is not permissible in the eyes of law. I also note that the disallowance of 36,056/- (40% of the festival expenses) has been incurred exclusively for the business purpose and all the payments had been through bank with proper supporting vouchers, hence, both the additions in dispute are deleted Disallowing the donation and not allowing the deduction under section 80G - Held that:- Expenditure was paid for brand promotion and effective marketing of company's produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and grossly erred in allowing lower rate of depreciation on CCTV cameras of ₹ 93,431/- considering that CCTV cameras are part and parcel of office equipment (eligible for depreciation and not that of Computers (eligible for depreciation @ 60%). This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming Assessing Officer order who has ignored various judicial pronouncements in favour of the Appellant Company relied upon by it has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 7. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer who has grossly erred in disallowing expenditure of ₹ 51,000 (advertisement expenses) without appreciating that the advertisement expenses have been incurred exclusively for the business development purposes. The Learned Assessing Officer has totally ignored the facts and circumstances of the Appellant Company in making the alleged addition of ₹ 51,000/- . This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 for revising return of income by the assessee to withdraw the depreciation claimed on rented premises after receipt of scrutiny notice without appreciating the fact that no penalty can be imposed as return of income being revised by the assessee suo moto before any query/ questionnaire was raised in this regard by the Learned Assessing Officer. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating the levying of interest under section 234B, which in any case could not been charged. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating that learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant seeks to alter, modify and add any of the ground as the case may be. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed the ereturn on 29.9.2012 declaring an income of ₹ 37,96,960/- which was revised on 27.9.2013 at an income of ₹ 45,80,280/-. The assesee company is engaged in the business of consultancy. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 7.8.2013 and served upon to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io Ltd. reported in 202 Taxman 545. 6.2 With regard to ground no. 7 relating to disallowing expenditure of ₹ 51,000/- advertisement expenses is concerned. In this regard, assessee counsel has submitted that that a bare perusal of page 165 of the paper book would make it evidently clear that, the said expenditure was paid to Lion Club for advertisement in District Directory for good and effective medium for company's products and services. He stated that it is a settled law that the expenses incurred for advertisement and sales promotion and brand building are allowable expenses. 6.2.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of authorities below on the issue in dispute. 6.2.2 I have both the parties and perused the records, I find that the said expenditure was genuine one as the same was paid to Lion Club for advertisement in District Directory for good and effective medium for company's products and services, as is evident from the receipt filed at pages 165 of the paper book and delete the addition in dispute by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Salora International Limited reported in 308 ITR 199 wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
