9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax Act, 1961, the expenditures being not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in not appreciating the true nature of the arrangement between the assessee company and the brand owners whereby the assessee was saddled with such marketing expenses which are in fact and for all intent liability of the foreign company owning the brands and the trademarks ? - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2014 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Soli Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Murlidhar with Mr.Arun Siwach and Mr.Jay Sanklecha i/b. Amarchand Mangaldas Sure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of advertising and marketing expenses is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the assessee's own case and which has been relied upon even by the assessee in the affidavit in reply, namely, Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 168 (Bom). He submits that merely because an order has been passed admitting these questions in other Appeal, the present appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 6. Mr.Dastur has taken us through the impugned order and submits that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal with regard to marketing expenses are, therefore, based on facts and circumstances in the assessee's case. Such finding cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by an error o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvertisement. In the circumstances, finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record warranting any interference in further appeal. Question No.7, therefore, cannot be termed as substantial question of law. 10. We have extensively heard the counsel on question Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Vimal Gupta submits that question Nos.1 4 and which have been formulated by the revenue are presenting two facets of the same claim regarding marketing expenses. Reliance is placed by Mr.Vimal Gupta on our order in Income Tax Appeal No.6185 of 2010 dated 31st July, 2014. However, Mr.Dastur submits that the findings on these questions and order in that behalf requires reconsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s claim of marketing expenses for the period from 01-12-1997 to 31-8-1998 incurred by the assessee of ₹ 29,22,88,006/- disallowed by the assessing officer under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expenditures being not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in not appreciating the true nature of the arrangement between the assessee company and the brand owners whereby the assessee was saddled with such marketing expenses which are in fact and for all intent liability of the foreign company owning the brands and the trademarks ? 13. The respondent waives service. 14. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
