Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

11-04-2019, Miele India, Section 37, 92CA(3), Tribunal Delhi

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 months 1 week ago #9155 by amit
Section - 37, 92CA(3)
Order Date - 11-04-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Delhi
Appellant - DCIT
Respondent - Miele India Pvt Ltd
Justice - N. K. BILLAIYA AM & K. N. CHARY JM
Citation - 419Taxpundit190
Appeal No. - ITA No. 724/DEL/2016
Asstt. Year - 2010-11

Order

PER : N. K. BILLAIYA

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 19, New Delhi dated 03.11.2015 pertaining to A.Y 2010-11.

2. Ground No. 1 relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,50,51,978/- on account of pre-operative expenses made by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 66,39,950/- treated by the Assessing Officer as expenditure on advertisement, the assessee is building a brand image of the parent company and hence capital in nature.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in trading of high-end kitchen appliances, cooling and coffee machines and laundry and floor care appliances. The return for the year under consideration was E-filed on 27.09.2010 declaring loss of Rs. 7.83 crores. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.

4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not commenced business during the first 7 months of the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to reply as to why all the expenses for the first 7 months should not be treated as preoperative expenses, which need to be amortized over a period of five years.

5. The assessee filed reply contending that sales had commenced in F.Y. 2008-09 and high value purchase order of Euro 52,853 was placed in the month of March 2009. The key managerial employees had joined the assessee company in F.Y. 2008-09. Infrastructure and administration was set up for smooth functioning in assessment year 2008-09. It was strongly contended that since the business had been set up in the earlier assessment year, therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn and the expenses incurred and claimed by the assessee are not pre-operative expenses.

6. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer, who completed assessment by disallowing expenditure of the first 7 months as pre-operative expenses.

7. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee is incurring high advertisement and sale expenditure without actual commencement of business, thereby building a brand image of its principal. According to the Assessing Officer, such expenditure should be capitalized as intangible asset and depreciation should be claimed on such expenditure. The Assessing Officer concluded by holding that the expenditure is for future and of enduring nature. Accordingly, he disallowed the expenditure amounting to Rs. 66,39,950/-.

8. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A).

9. After considering the facts and submissions the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, in his remand report, conceded that the company has commenced its business operations during F.Y. 2009 10 and the first two purchase orders from Ms Navin Electrotech Pvt Ltd and M/s Dhawal International Electronic Pvt Ltd have been received during the previous year 2008- 09. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) de eted the addition on account of pre-operative expenses.

10. On the issue of disallowance of administrative expenses, the ld. CIT(A) held as under:

“I have gone through the arguments of the appellant and observations of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has observed that by incurring expenditure, the Assessing Officer is building a brand image of the parent company. If that was the case, then the Transfer Pricing Officer should have made an adjustment in respect of the same. However, the TPO has given a clear order on the basis of facts & circumstances. Moreover, the appellant has shown that incurring of expenses to the tune of nearly Rs. 72,24,922/- is not isolated or extraordinary. In fact, during the succeeding years, similarly high expenses have been incurred. Advertisement expenses howsoever high may be, have been held to be of revenue nature simply because they do not have lasting value.

a. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v CitiFinancial Consumer Finance Limited (ITA No. 1820/2010,1974/2010, 01/2011, 05/2011 held as follows:

13. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of this case, it clearly emerges that the expenditure on publicity and advertisement is to be treated as revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred. Concededly, there is no advantage which has accrued to the assessee in the capital field. This expenditure was incurred to facilitate the assessee’s trading operations. No fixed capital was created by this expenditure. We may also add here that in the Income

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of DCIT vs. Miele India Pvt Ltd

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.106 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO Read More
PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS Read More
CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.

CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.

CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. Read More
PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar