https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326045 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow brand promotion expenses as revenue expenditure, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that if an expenditure is revenue in nature and claimed under section 37, it should be entirely allowable in the current year without being spread over multiple years. Previous ITAT orders were cited to support the assessee's position, resulting in the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's argument that the expenses should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:12:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326045 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow brand promotion expenses as revenue expenditure, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that if an expenditure is revenue in nature and claimed under section 37, it should be entirely allowable in the current year without being spread over multiple years. Previous ITAT orders were cited to support the assessee's position, resulting in the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's argument that the expenses should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326045