9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enditure - expenses incurred for DRUPA Exhibition Germany - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Apex Court in Taparia Tools vs. JCTI [ 2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] has held that there is no concept of deferred expenditure unless it falls in specified Sections. It held that ordinarily, if the Assessee claims the expenditure in a particular year, it has to be allowed. We note that the expenditure incurred on DRUPA Exhibition is in the nature of marketing and selling expenses. This expense is incurred with the hope of resultant increased sales. In fact this Court has in CIT V/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. [ 2016 (11) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while following its earlier decision in CIT v/s. Geoffrey Manners Co. Ltd. [ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Sham V. Walve for the Appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b. PDS Legal for the Respondent. P.C. :- This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 13 April 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has urged the following re-framed questions of law for our consideration :- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in terms of provision of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent Assessee. This by the decision of this Court in the case of the same Respondent viz. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Manugraph (Income Tax Appeal No. 454 of 2016) rendered on 19 November 2018. (b) The aforesaid decision was rendered following an earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. M/s. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 67). (c) Therefore, for the reasons indicated in the above orders, the question No.(a) does not raise any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding Question No. (d) :- (a) In its return of income the Respondent had claimed an amount of ₹ 2.99 crores as revenue expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal also relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT v/s. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 wherein the Revenue urged that advertisement expenditure should be as deferred over a period of time as its benefit is obtained over a period of time. This submission was not accepted by the Gujarat High Court which held that an expenditure which is undisputedly incurred for business purpose is an expenditure incurred in the revenue field. Thus, it held there can be no occasion for spreading the expenditure over the period of benefit obtained when it cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty that the benefit is spread over a certain period. (d) The Counsel for the Revenue placed reliance upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is expense is incurred with the hope of resultant increased sales. In fact this Court has in CIT V/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 152 while following its earlier decision in CIT v/s. Geoffrey Manners Co. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 134 held that expenditure incurred in making advertisement films resulting in building the firm s brand image, is an expenditure in respect of an ongoing business and would be in the revenue field. There is no provision in the Act to disallow revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act in its entirety, in the year in which the expenditure is incurred, on the basis that it has to be allowed only to the extent benefit is received. (f) Therefore in view of the self evident position i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income-tax (327) ITR 45 6 it allowed the Respondent s appeal. In the above case it is held that requirement of deducting tax at source under Section 195 of the Act would only arise, if the payment is shown to have embedded income, taxable in India. In this case it is found that the payment which has been made is in the nature of reimbursement and therefore no obligation to deduct tax at source arises. Consequently, no occasion to disallow expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Act can arise. (d) We find that the issue is no longer res-integra. This as in identical circumstances it has been held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
