9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign sister concern of the assessee is benefited by these expenses - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that once it is not disputed that the expenses were primarily incurred for the purpose of business, incidental benefit to some other party from such expenses, would not reduce the allowability of such expenditure as a deduction. This more particularly when the same has been incurred in the course of and for the purpose of business. The impugned order of the Tribunal held that the 100% expenditure by way of marketing and publicity expenses are allowable as expenses deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act. See M/S. STAR INDIA P. LTD. [ 2009 (3) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and NGC. NETWORK (INDIA) P. LTD. [ 2014 (10) TMI 365 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 20.07.2015 in the case of CIT-1, Kochi v. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 69 (Kerala) has held that whenever tax was deductible under Section 194J but was deducted under section 194C, such a deduction does not satisfy requirement of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961? 3. Regarding question no. (a) :- (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by holding that the amounts paid to cable operators for channel placement fee was subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Act and not under Section 194J of the Act as contended by the Revenue. This by following the decision of its co-ordinate benches in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also resulted in benefit to M/s. Star Ltd. who owned the 'Star' brand. In the above context, the Assessing Officer allowed only 75% of ₹ 9.75 crores incurred by way of marketing and publicity expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, disallowed ₹ 2.44 crores being the balance 25% of the marketing and publicity expenses incurred by the respondent. (b) The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on an application of the petitioner, deleted the disallowance. (c) On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that once it is not disputed that the expenses were primarily incurred for the purpose of business, incidental benefit to some other party from such expenses, would not reduce the allowability of such expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
