TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the Appellant an amount being Rs. 1,11,70,500/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in not appreciating the fact that the advertisement expenditure incurred by the Appellant under section 37 of the Act, an amount being Rs. 1,11,70,500/-, relates to business of the Appellant and rightly claimed by the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.Whether the learned Authorities below are correct in not appreciating the fact that the advertisement expenditure incurred by the Appellant satisfies the conditions laid down under provisions of section 37 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.Whether the learned Authorities below are correct in disallowing the advertisement expenditure of Rs. 1,11,70,500/-, by observing that the companies from whom the Appellant has taken service and made payment are in the list of shell companies, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing the advertisement expenditure of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rification of the same, it is noticed that the invoices submitted later by the assessee are completely different from the invoices submitted earlier. Even the invoice nos. and amounts of the invoices are not matching with the invoices submitted earlier and also are not matching with de tails/ break up of Advertisement expenses which were submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The addresses are also completely different from the earlier one. As per the invoices submitted later by the assessee, the addresses of the company are M/ s Funidea Housing Pvt. Ltd., 7/1, Nafar Chand Das Road, Kolkata-700034 and M/s Overtop Conclave Pvt. Ltd., 9, Lal Bazar Street, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700001. When it was put before the AR of the assessee company, he could not explain the same. In this case, the letters sent for confirmation were returned back and subsequently, the assessee produced new invoices with different addresses, different invoice numbers and different amount. The assessee failed to substantiate the claim of expenditure and failed to submit the details of services rendered. Under these circumstances, the claim of Rs. 1,11,70,500/- towards advertisement e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the service rendered by the appellant. The advertisement promoting the services of the appellant were displayed at Hyderabad, Bangalore, Kolkata, Delhi and other places across India, photographs of the hoardings are enclosed. Expenditure incurred by the appellant is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act, as it satisfies all the condition laid down u/s 37 of the Act. The appellant has also deducted TDS at the time of credit or payment made to the vendor for the advertisement services rendered. The expenditure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act, provided the expenditure incurred by the appellant satisfies all the test laid down u/s 37 of the Act. The appellant has also deducted the TDS as the payments made to the vendors were also subjected to the provision of TDS. The appellant had submitted the confirmation letters from the vendors to whom the appellant had entered into agreement to promote and advertise services of the appellant. The appellant has paid the inspection fees at Ministry of Corporate Affairs to view public documents i.e., financial statements of both the vendors. On perusal of profit and loss account it can be seen that the vendors had disclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of advertisement expenditure, it was noticed that the two vendors i.e., M/s Funidea Housing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Overtop Conclave Pvt. Ltd., from the appellant company had taken services for advertisement, was found in the list of shell companies issued by the Government and in this regard the appellant company was asked to prove that the above said companies are not in the list of companies having accommodation entry. In this regard, the appellant company has filed its written submission vide letter dt. 22-01-2018. The written submissions along with details filed by the appellant company were verified and considered. After going through the details filed by the appellant, as mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, it was observed that the addresses of the both above companies are same. Further, the addresses mentioned in the assessment order are also not matching with the addresses now filed by the appellant company. Therefore, the submissions of the appellant are rejected since the above two companies are in the list of companies of accommodation entries. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer confirmed and the grounds of appeal dismissed".....