TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made to book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act on account of provision for doubtful debts treating the same to be unascertained liability?" Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that in view of the retrospective amendment with effect from 1st April, 2001 by Finance Act, 2009, this issue now stands covered and has to be decided against the respondent-assessee. In view of the said statement, we formulate the aforesaid question and the same is answered against the respondent- assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer will accordingly compute the book profits and proceed as per law. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld ITAT erred in de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnor India (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC). Therefore, no substantial question of law is required to be framed. Issue No.6 "Whether provisions of section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are clarificatory in nature" Whether the Ld ITAT erred in law and on merits in holding that interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is chargeable from AY 2004-05?? This issue is again covered against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee vide DIT Vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated (2010) 330 ITR 578 (Del). In the said case it has been held that Section 234D is applicable with effect from the assessment year 2004-05 and not applicable to the earlier assessment years. Issue No.7 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2010] 195 TAXMAN 256 (DELHI). This Court had rejected the contention holding as under:- "4. We find from the order of the ITAT that the Tribunal has discussed in detail the terms of Technical Assistant Agreement dated 14-2-1997, as per which the assessee was provided the technical know-how and was also allowed to use the brand name 'Adidas' on the products manufactured by the assessee, which are to be sold in India, Nepal and Bhutan. The Tribunal observed that merely because the assessee was paying royalty at the rate of 5 per cent to M/s. AIPL would not mean that the assessee could not incur the expenditure on advertisement to popularize the products dealt with by it in Indian market. No doubt, brand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, it is also pertinent to mention that merely because the assessee-company has been paying royalty to M/s. Adidas A.G. for the use of the brand name Adidas, that by itself cannot be a ground to disallow the assessee's claim on account of advertisement expenses which mere made to promote the assessee's business in India and to increase its business and the sales of the products under the brand name Adidas. The assessee was paying royalty for using brand name Adidas to the customers in various parts of India to make them aware about the nature of the products being sold by the assessee at different outlets as per assessee's business strategy. To promote business and commerce by any businessman would certainly come within the expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasson J. David and Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim of deduction on account of advertisement and publicity expenses in all the three assessment years.'' 5. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law that arises for our consideration. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. We may also note the findings of the tribunal in para 29 of the impugned order, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:- "29. We have considered the rival submission and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-104 TTJ 1 (Third Member) wherein it was held that advertisement expenses incurred on promoting viewership on TV channel by the taxpayer engaged in procuring programs for those channel were expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and it could not be disallowed on the ground that it might have also benefited the taxpayer?s principal. To the similar effect is the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT-111 TTJ 498 cited by the learned counsel for the taxpayer wherein it was held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the taxpayer for promoting sales in India in respect of products manufactured by it under various brands of ....