9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in [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. 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 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. Also note that the disallowance (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. See Sayaji Iron 20,000/- was paid for brand promotion and effective marketing of company's products and services, as is evident from the receipt filed at page 166 of the paper book. Hence, the addition in dispute is deleted. Also find that even otherwise the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. See CIT vs. Salora International Limited [2008 (8) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] wherein, it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in adhoc disallowing expenditure of ₹ 1,24,003/- (i.e., 10% of the telephone expenses and vehicle running and maintenance expenses) considering them as personal expenses without any material evidence or basis. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 assessee, fixing the case for 20.8.2013. A detailed questionnaire alongwith notices u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Act were issued on 9.12.2013 which were duly served upon the assessee. Due to change of address, fresh notices were issued on 10.10.2014 and also due to change of jurisdiction fresh notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.11.2014. In response to these notices, A.R. of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 has been held that expenses incurred for advertisement and sales promotion and brand building are allowable expenses. 6.3 With regard to ground no. 8 & 9 relating to adhoc disallowance expenditure of ₹ 1,24,003/- (i.e. 10% of the telephone expense and vehicle running and maintenance expenses) and disallowing the amount of ₹ 36,056/- (40% of the festival expenses) are concerned. In this regard, assessee counsel has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
