2011 (4) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etc. treating the same as Revenue in nature. Likewise, the Assessing Officer had also allowed expenditure on account of advertisements, publicity and sales promotion treating the same as business expenditure. The orders of the Assessing Officer were revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of its power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as the Commissioner was of the view that the Assessing Officer had not considered the matters in detail and there was a possibility that the expenditure incurred on both the aforesaid counts gave enduring benefit to the assessee and, therefore, should have been amortized treating the same as capital in nature. We may note that before the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."   2. It is clear from the above that only on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the expenditure, the Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine it. The plea of the assessee that assessee had furnished the details of these expenses, which was considered by the Assessing Officer before allowing the same as Revenue expenditure is not even controverted. The Commissioner, in his wisdom, thought that the expenditure incurred on the aforesaid count appears to be capital in nature as it gives an enduring benefit to the assessee. Even the Commissioner was not categorical about the nature of expenditure and that is the reason that he remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine th....