Tribunal dismisses miscellaneous applications on advertisement expenses, deductions, and more for A.Ys. 1998-1999 and 1999-2000

The Tribunal dismissed surplus miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee for A.Ys. 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, focusing on issues including disallowance of advertisement expenses, write-off of small debit balances, denial of deductions u/s 80 O and u/s 35D for GDR issue expenses. The Tribunal upheld disallowances based on accounting principles, lack of pressing certain grounds, consistency with previous orders, and citing relevant judgments. All miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with the order pronounced on 17th July 2013.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of surplus miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of advertisement expenses for A.Y. 1998-1999.
3. Disallowance of write off of small debit balances for A.Y. 1998-1999.
4. Denial of deduction u/s 80 O for A.Y. 1998-1999.
5. Denial of deduction u/s 35D for GDR issue expenses for A.Y. 1998-1999.
6. Denial of deduction u/s 80 O for A.Y. 1999-2000.
7. Denial of deduction u/s 35D for GDR issue expenses for A.Y. 1999-2000.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal dismissed two surplus miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee for A.Ys. 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, as the issues raised in these applications arose from the assessee's appeal alone. The remaining two miscellaneous applications were considered for each assessment year, covering all issues raised from both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals.

2. For A.Y. 1998-1999, the first issue was the disallowance of advertisement expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance as the expenses were from the previous year, and under the mercantile system of accounting, deductions are allowed when expenses are incurred, not when paid. The Tribunal found no mistake warranting rectification.

3. The second issue was the disallowance of write off of small debit balances. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed by the assessee's counsel, stating rectification for such mistakes post-argument is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. The judgment cited was distinguished as inapplicable to the present case.

4. The third issue was the denial of deduction u/s 80 O. The Tribunal rejected the claim, noting consistency with a previous order and dismissing the contention that facts differed in the current year. The ground was dismissed.

5. The last issue for A.Y. 1998-1999 was the denial of deduction u/s 35D for GDR issue expenses. The Tribunal provided detailed reasons for rejecting the claim, citing relevant judgments and emphasizing that the absence of disallowance in the previous year did not bind the current year's decision. The impugned order was upheld.

6. For A.Y. 1999-2000, similar issues were raised regarding deductions u/s 80 O and u/s 35D, mirroring those in A.Y. 1998-1999. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in the previous year's order, rejecting the claims in the current year as well.

7. In conclusion, all miscellaneous applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, and the order was pronounced on 17th July 2013.

---