TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e makes a claim that no expenditure has been incurred in earning the excepted income, sub-section (2) of section 14A shall apply, meaning threby, disallowance u/s 14A(1) is called for. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 8,m14,280/- made u/s 36(1)(ii) on account of disallowance of bonus paid to directors of the company ignoring that the provisions to section 36(1)(ii) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in the assessee's case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 13,14,00,000/- on a/c of non-refundable portion of advance fee ignoring that as per the terms and conditions of the admission and the refund policy, this amount is not refundable potion of the fee and, therefore, the income has accrued during the year. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. British Paints 188 ITR 44. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 6,24,477/- on a/c of bad debts ignoring that conditions laid down in section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(i) are not satisfied in this case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome. Section 14A sub section 2, further states that whether the assessing officer having regard to the account of the assessee's previous year is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim that the claim of the expenditure made by the assessee or the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to the income not forming part of the total income under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of the expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. In this regard Rule 8D has been prescribed but Rule 8D has been prescribed w.e.f. 24.03.2008, Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT:328 ITR 81 has taken the view that Rule 8D is prospective in operation. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd.:203 Taxman 364/247 CTR 162 has also taken the same view that Rule 8D would apply prospective. In view of this fact, we agree with that the submission of the Ld. AR that Rule 8D will not applicable in the case of the assessee and it will apply prospectively. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to the students. The assessing officer, however, added the aforesaid amount of fee booked as advance fee as income for the relevant assessment year. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the decision of the assessee's own case of this Tribunal in ITA No. 4924 and 4925/Del/2009 as per para 21 of its order before us. Even though, Ld. DR vehemently argued but we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we are of the view that this issue is duly covered by the decision of this Tribunal and assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07. We accordingly dismiss this ground. 10. The ground No. 5 relates to the claim of the bad debts amounting to Rs. 6,24,477/-. This issue, in our opinion, is no more res-judicata as the debts has been duly written off by the assessee in his books of account. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT: 323 ITR 397. Ld. DR even though relied 323 ITR 166 in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT(A) that decision relate to the provision made for the bad debts. In view of the decision of TRF Ltd (Supra), we dismiss this ground. 11. Ground No. 6 relates to the deletion of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refully considered the submissions made by the Ld AR and have gone through the assessment order. The AO has su moto amortised the aforesaid advertisement expenses and have allowed 1/5th of it i.e. Rs. 1,05,61,343/- and have disallowed the balance of Rs. 4,22,45,372/- on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. It is seen that the expenditure in question has been incurred by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and a claim of deduction thereof has been made u/s 37 of the Act. Further it is seen that there is no dispute about the genuineness of this of this expenditure. It is not also in dispute that the expenditure in question is a business expenditure and was incurred wholly for the purpose of the business of the appellant. The expenditure incurred in the nature of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion was incurred for ever and in no manner any portions thereof reverted back to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 01 has repelled the theory of expenditure of enduring nature as held in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e spread over, that too when the assessee chooses to do so. The same ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. CITI Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. (2011-TIOL-368-HC-Del-IT). Further, it is also seen that in the earlier assessment year the assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) and the assessee's claim of expenditure under the head advertisement. Hence, the principle of consistency demands that this expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Soami Stasang Vs. CIT. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 4,22,45,372/- under the head advertisement, publicity & sales promotion. 20. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same, Ld. DR even though vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802 and that of Assam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34. But we noted that these decisions are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. V....