2015 (2) TMI 817 - HC - Income Tax

Court allows deduction for sample distribution expenses under Income-tax Act, 1961

Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh Versus M/s Bazaar décor (India), P. Limited, Mohali

The High Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and CIT(A), ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court found that the deduction for sample ... Sample distribution expenses - Tribunal allowing deduction of expenses in terms of section 37(1) - Held that:- The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessee-company was an export trading house and had distributed carpets and shawls as samples during the year. It was further noticed that these items were exported by the assessee in the subsequent assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The samples distributed were not extraneous to the business of the assessee. Furthermore, the samples were given to the foreign agents in person during their business exploratory visit in India and the same would fall under the expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business. Thus the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were right in allowing deduction on account of expenditure on free sample distribution by the assessee. - Decided in favour of the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of deduction for sample distribution expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Legality of including prohibited items (shahtoosh shawls) in the sample distribution under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Deduction for Sample Distribution Expenses:The primary issue was whether the sample distribution expenses without any effective sale during the year under consideration were admissible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that such expenses should not qualify for deduction as there were no sales and the expenses were not for the purpose of business. However, the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) allowed the deduction, stating that Section 37(1) does not necessitate that the expenditure must result in earning income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC), which clarified that the expression 'for the purpose of the business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning profits' and includes various acts incidental to the carrying on of a business.The Tribunal upheld that the expenditure on free sample distribution was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, even if it did not directly result in sales during the same financial year. The Tribunal found that the assessee-company, an export trading house, distributed samples of carpets and shawls, which were relevant to its business and later exported in subsequent years. The Tribunal also noted that the samples were distributed to potential customers during their business visits to India, thus fitting within the scope of Section 37(1).2. Legality of Including Prohibited Items (Shahtoosh Shawls):The Revenue argued that the inclusion of shahtoosh shawls in the sample distribution violated the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and thus, the expenditure on such items should be disallowed under the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act, which prohibits deductions for expenditures incurred for purposes that are offenses or prohibited by law. However, the Tribunal and CIT(A) did not find any specific reference to the Explanation to Section 37(1) in the factual matrix of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary question was the admissibility of the sample distribution expenses under Section 37(1), irrespective of the inclusion of prohibited items.The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure on sample distribution was allowable, as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and there was no requirement in Section 37(1) that such expenditure must lead to immediate sales or income. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of CIT(A) that the evidence provided by the assessee, including invoices, challans, and gate passes, substantiated the distribution of samples to potential customers.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and CIT(A), finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Court ruled that the deduction for sample distribution expenses was rightly allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the substantial question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.