TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....software, providing e-solutions, BPO activities and other management consultancy activity. Further fact of the case are discussed while adjudicating the ground of appeal the assessee and the revenue. Ground No.1: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) year end provision made: 3. During the course assessment the assessing officer noticed that assessee has made year end provisions for F.Y. 2014-15 to the amount of Rs. 141,55,62,737/-. The assessing officer asked the assessee to justify why no tax was deducted on the aforesaid provision and why the same should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee explained that assessee company's account were finalized in 2nd week of April every year. In order to reflect its expenses in the books of account as per the applicable accounting standard and accounting policy, the company was required who merely provide for the expenses because the bills from the vendors were not received. It was also explained that these provisions were made on reasonable estimate basis and were debited to expense account and credited the provision account. It was also explained that no account of any vendor was credited for such provision, therefore, no tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under: In the opinion of the company, year-end provisions of expenses which are reversed in the subsequent year are not liable for deduction of tax at source as such provisions are made only for the purpose of preparation of annual financial statements in accordance with applicable accounting principles/standards 16. I first take up the part I on the matter of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer called for explanation of the assessee who stated inter alia that a. Entry concerned is made as per accounting standards and policy b. The person concerned to whom sum is payable is not identifiable from the entry c. Tax deduction at source is effected when the person to whom sum payable is identified and thereafter Form 16A is issued. d. Certain case decision is cited. The Assessing Officer overruled the assessee and reasons recorded by him included the following: A. Even when sum is credited to suspense account tax deduction at source is to be made B. Bangalore ITAT in case of IBM India Pvt Ltd [TS-305-ITAT-2015(Bang] has stated that even when sum is credited to suspense account tax deduction a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce merely because provision is created. The disallowance without examining the nature of provision by itself renders it wrong. There are admissible and inadmissible provisions. The disallowance made sans valid reasons has no locus stand/. The heading of the disallowance and the computation statement mentions the same as disallowance under section 40(a)(i)2 which leaves doubt as to whether there is an unambiguous finding regarding eligibility under section 37. As an emphatic finding which is reason based is not; present in the assessment order, the alternate disallowance under section 37 is also held not in order, 20. Part III of the ground is against adding the same in computation of Book Profit under section 115JB. I had deleted the substantive addition on both counts. Keeping in view this decision, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute book profit under section 115JB. 21. In view of discussion above, he Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2,6551677,983.Parts I, II and III of the ground is disposed of accordingly." 18.2. We find that provision has been made in the books by the assessee as per the standard accounting pract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 201 of the act holding, the appellant to be an assessee in default. Therefore, no disallowance could be made under section 40a(ia). He referred to page number 265 of the paper-book that gives details of provision on which TDS was not paid. As per the AR bills for the said expenditure were not received during the year under consideration. As per the AR, the appellant company would make year-end provisions based on services rendered by various lenders/professionals. These provisions represented cost of various activities carried out by the company during the relevant financial period. Since, the company was following the Mercantile system of accounting it was required to account for such expenses, even though the concerned parties had not submitted their bills or such bills were pending for approval based on the internal system. At that point of time, since bills from the contractors had not been raised though that was owed by the company in favour of any specific party. Such a debt would be owed only on receipt of the bills and after it had been passed following the procedure. Only at that point of time relationship of debtor and creditor was established a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer was of the view that the aforesaid claim of deduction was not a part of the return of income and assessee had raised this claim during the course of assessment. Therefore, AO has referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. (284 ITR 323) and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 10AA on the interest income. 8. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that on similar fact and identical issue the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 vide ITA No. 5904/Mum/2019 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have perused the decision of ITAT in the above referred case wherein identical issue on similar fact the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant operating part of the decision is reproduced as under: "19. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The lower authorities have denied the benefit of deduction under section 10AA on the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce that in the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd (87 Taxmann.com 182) considered similar issue in the context of deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act where it is held that - "35. The Scheme of Deductions under Chapter VI-A in Sections 80-HH, 80-HHC, 80-IB, etc from the "Gross Total Income of the Undertaking", which may arise from different specified activities in these provisions and other incomes may exclude interest income from the ambit of Deductions under these provisions, but exemption under Section 10-A and 10- B of the Act encompasses the entire income derived from the business of export of such eligible Undertakings including interest income derived from the temporary parking of funds by such Undertakings in Banks or even Staff loans. The dedicated nature of business or their special geographical locations in STPI or SEZs. etc. makes them a special category of assessees entitled to the incentive in the form of 100% Deduction under Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act, rather than it being a special character of income entitled to Deduction from Gross Total Income under Chapter VI-A un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y used previously in any other business. No objection could have been taken to such reading but when the result of reading in such plain and simple manner is analyzed then it appears that literal construction would not be proper. ..." II] In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, [(1981) 4 SCC 675] = [1982 SCC (Tax) 30 p.690], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "8. Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J., that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the legislature. The court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision taken in view of the commercial expediency and the interest income earned incidentally cannot be delinked from its profits and gains derived by the Undertaking engaged in the export of Articles as envisaged under Section 10-A or Section 10-B of the Act and cannot be taxed separately under Section 56 of the Act. 38. We therefore affirm and agree with the view expressed by the first Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd.(supra) and we do not agree with the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench on 10/04/2014 in the present case. 23. We further notice that a similar view is expressed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Symantee Software India P Ltd (supra) while considering the deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is relevant to mention here that the manner of computing deduction under section 10A as per the provisions of subsection (4) of the said section is similar to subsection (7) of section 10AA and therefore the ratio of the above decisions rendered in the context of deduction under section 10A would equally be applicable to deduction claimed under section 10AA. Accordingly respectful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the assessing officer. 13. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that subscription was made towards publication and same was not any information or advice given individually. He also submitted that information was accessable by any subscriber on payment of requisite price with regular internet access for which no particular software or hardware is required. He also stated that the fees was payable even if no services was utilised. He also referred the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (IT) Vs. Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India (P) Ltd. (2012) 20 taxman.com 695 (Bombay). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 14. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have perused the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India Pvt. Ltd. as referred supra by the ld. Counsel wherein held that payment to non-resident for import of business information reports from an American company were not liable to deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in US, tax paid in other DTAA countries and taxes paid in non DTAA countries. The ld. CIT(A) also stated that in other DTAA countries, tax credit will not be available in respect of income which is claimed exempt u/s 10A/10B and respect of non DTAA countries tax credit will not be available. 18. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel referred the decision of ITAT in the case of assessee itself for assessment year 2007-08 to 2013-14. He also submitted that foreign tax credit should be provided for taxes paid in overseas jurisdiction in respect of Sec. 10A(10AA) eligible income in India, as per the tax credit provisions of respective DTAA. He also submitted that even under MAT computation the assessee should be allowed full credit for tax paid overseas in respect of 10A/10AA income. 19. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have perused the decision of ITAT for the assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 5823/Mum/2016. The relevant operating part of the decision is reproduced as under: "31. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of double taxation, the Court observed that as per section 91 of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to avail tax credit. Thus, on a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it becomes clear that where the respective tax treaty provides for benefit for foreign tax paid even in respect of income on which the assessee has not paid tax in India, still, it would be eligible for tax credit under section 90 of the Act. Like Article 25 of the Indo-USA treaty, treaties with various other countries such as Indo-Denmark, Indo-Hungary, Indo-Norway, Indo-Oman, Indo-US, Indo-Saudi Arabia, Indo-Taiwan also have similar provision providing for benefit of foreign tax credit even in respect of income not subjected to tax in India. However, Indo-Canada and Indo-Finland treaties do not provide for such benefit unless the income is subjected to tax in both the countries. Therefore, the foreign tax credit would be available to the assessee in all cases except the foreign tax paid in Finland and Canada. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant credit accordingly." Following the decision of ITAT as referred above we direct the assessing officer to allow ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: "7. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that CIT(A) has observed that a debit of Rs. 46,94,62,365/- appearing in Profit & Loss Account is not a provision set aside for diminution in value of current investment but the actual charge to Profit & Loss Account which has been written off in value of current assets. We find that on perusal of section 115JB of the Act is very clear that appellant company require to added back the book profit set aside as provision for diminution in value of investment under the circumstances what is required to be decided whether the amount of Rs. 46,94,62,365/- debited to Profit & Loss account set aside a provision or has been write off as a loss against the value of assets. The assessee has made investment in mutual fund in March 2008. The intention of the assessee was to hold a short period and accordingly classified the said investment as current investment in balance sheet of the assessee company as on 31.03.2008. The assessee company sold this unit in April, 2008 i.e. within a period of one month. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round No.7: Deduction u/s 10AA on commercial profits instead of income from business and profession: 25. During the appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that identical issue on similar fact has been adjudicated in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2012-13 & 2014-15 vide ITAT Mumbai vide ITA No. 5199/Mum/2019 for 2014-15. 26. We have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of assessee for assessment year 2014-15 vide ITA No. 599/Mum/2019. The relevant operating part of the decision is reproduced as under: "32. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has considered similar issue in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2012-13 (supra) wherein it is held that - "6.3. In respect of claim of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act on commercial profit, the ld. AR before us placed reliance on the provisions of Section 80HH of the Act and also argued that the language of Section 80HH and Section 10AA are pari materia in as much as both the sections provide that in computing the total income of the assessee, deduction shall be allowed at certain percentage of profits and gains derived....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o referred the decision of ITAT for assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 5713/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2009-10 in his finding which is reproduced as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the stage of the assessment proceeding itself, it is the claim of the assessee that the term "tax", as defined under section 2(43) of the Act would only include taxes chargeable under the Indian Income Tax Act. It is the further case of the assessee that since in respect of the State taxes paid overseas, the assessee is not eligible to claim relief under section 90 or 91 of the Act, it will not be covered under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. On a perusal of provisions of sub-section (43) of section 2 of the Act, it becomes clear that the term "tax" has been defined to mean any tax paid under the provisions of the Act. Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act says that any rate or taxes levied on the profits or gain in any business or profession would not be allowable as deduction. Explanation-1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 1st April 2006, further clarifies that any sum eligible for relief of tax eith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we direct the Assessing Officer to verify whether the State taxes paid by the assessee overseas are eligible for any relief under section 90 of the Act and if it is not found to be so, assessee's claim of deduction should be allowed. In view of our decision above, no separate adjudication of grounds no.1.2 is required." Following the decision of ITAT as referred in the order of the ld. CIT(A) as above, we don't find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A) therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No.2: Disallowance of expenditure on imported software on account of non-deduction of TDS: 30. During the course of assessment the assessee has claimed software expenses to the amount of Rs. 104,72,46,907/- the break-up of the same is given below as under: "(i) software for internal use: Rs. 40,17,05,471/- (ii) Software for trading purpose: Rs. 64,55,41,436/- The assessing officer has treated the software utilized for internal use as being in the nature of capital expenditure and accordingly the amount of Rs. 40,17,05,471/- was disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. Regarding imported software from third party sale, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served that since the assessee had not deducted tax at source while making payment for purchases of software both for internal use as well as for trading purpose, the amount paid is liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 78,39,58,321. The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority. 9. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06, held that the expenditure incurred on software products acquired for internal use is a capital expenditure, hence, the assessee is entitled to depreciation thereon. However, in respect of payment made towards software products acquired for re-sale / trading purpose, learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the Assessing Officer that it is in the nature of royalty, hence, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source." 7.2. We find that the ld. AR argued that the amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2012 will not have any retrospective effect based on the principle of "impossibility of performance", since assessee cannot be expecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined in a DTAA, the definition contained in the DTAA is to be looke4 at. It is only where there is no such definition that the definition in the Ad can then be applied. UNION OF INDLA V. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN [7003] 763 1TR 706 (SC) relied on. The expression "copyright" has not been defined separately in the definitions section of the Copyright Act, 1957, yet, section 14 makes it clear that "copyright means the "exclusive right", subject to the provisions of the Act, to do or authorise the doing of certain acts "in respect of a work". In the case of computer programmes, section 14(b) specifically speaks of two sets of acts: the seven ads enumerated in clause (a) and the eighth act of selling or giving on commercial rental or offering for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer programme. All the seven acts set out in clause (a) delineate how the exclusive right with the owner of the copyright may be parted with. In essence, such right is referred to as copyright, and includes the right to reproduce the work in any material form, issue copies of the work to the pub tic, perform the work in public or make translations or adaptations of the work. The de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter would not. When, under a non-exclusive licence, an end -user gets the right to use computer software in the form of a compact disk, the end-user only receives a right to use the software and nothing mare. The end-user does not get any of the rights that the owner continues to retain under section 14(b) of the 1957 Act read with sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (a) thereof Thus. the conclusion that when computer software is licensed for use under an end-user licence agreement, what is also licensed is the right to use the copyright embedded therein, is wholly incorrect. The licence for the use of a product under an end-user licence agreement cannot be construed as the licence spoken of in section 30 of the 1957 Act, as such end-user licence agreement only imposes restrictive conditions upon the end-user and does not part with any interest relatable to any rights mentioned in section 14(a) and (b) of the 1957 Act. The ownership of copyright in a work is different from the ownership of the Physical material in which the copyrighted work may happen to be embedded. Any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the Explanations to section 9(vi) of the Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cludes a lump-sum consideration which would not amount to income of the recipient chargeable under the head "capital gains"; when it speaks of the transfer of "all or any rights", it expressly includes the granting of a licence in respect thereof; and it states that such transfer must be "in respect of" any copyright of any literary work. However, even where such transfer is 'in respect of" copyright, the transfer of all or any rights in relation to copyright is a sine qua non under Explanation2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. in short, there must be transfer by way of licence or otherwise, of all or any of the rights mentioned in section 14(b) read with section 14(a) of the 1957 Act. Indian tax laws use the expression "in respect of" as synonymous with the expression "on" the expression "in respect of", when used in a taxation statute, is only synonymous with the words "on" or "attributable to". This accords with the meaning to be given to the expression "in respect of" contained in Explanation 2(v) to section 9(1)(vi) of the income-tax Act, 1961 and would not in any manner make the expression otiose. STATE OF MADRAS V. SWASTIX TOBACCO FACTORY [1966] AIR 1966....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inance Act, 2000. Quite clearly, Explanation 4 cannot apply to any right for the use of or the right to use computer software before the term "computer software" was inserted in the statute. Likewise, even qua section 2(o) of the 1957 Act, the term "computer software' was introduced for the first time in the definition literary work, and defined under section 2(ffc) only in 1994. It is equally Ludicrous for the amendment which also inserted Explanation 6 to section 9(i)(vi) of the Act, to apply with effect from June 1, 1976, when technology relating to transmission by a satellite, optic fibre or other similar technology was only regulated by Parliament for the first time through the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, much after 1976. For all these reasons, it is clear that Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is no clarificatory of the position as of June 1, 1976, but in fact, expands that posit ion to include what is stated therein, by the Finance Act, 2012. Notification No, 21 of 2C'12 dated June 13, 2012 being issued after Explanation 4 was inserted could not be invoked to assert that Explanation 4 clarifies the legal position as it always stood. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to tax at all, but are deductions that are to be made before assessments to tax are made, would Lead to absurd consequences. Article 30 cannot be read out of context. The logic behind article 30 of the DTA.4 is for reasons connected with the municipal taxation laws of the United States of America and has nothing to do with Indian municipal law governing the liability of persons to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. This is reinforced by the fact that the OECD Commentary on articles 30 and 31 acknowledges the fact that the "entry into force" provisions, unlike the rest of the provisions in the OECD Mode! Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, depend on the domestic laws of contracting States. Persons are not obligated to do the impossible, i.e., to apply a provision of a statute when it was not actually and factually on the statute book. Thus the "person" mentioned in section. 195 of the Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of "royalty" inserted by Explanation 4 to section 9(1 Xvi) of the Act, Or the assessment years. at a time when such Explanation was not actually and factually in the statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries in so far as the taxation of royalty for parting with copyright is concerned. The OECD Model Tax Convention speaks of the importance of the OECD Commentary. The term "royalties" is defined in all the DTAAS in a manner either identical with or similar to the definition con tamed in article 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. The OECD Commentary on royalty payments under article 12 states that in a transaction where a distributor makes payments to acquire and distribute software copies (without the right to reproduce the software), the rights in relation to these acts of distribution should be disregarded in analysing the character of the transact ion for tax purposes. Payments in these types of transactions would be dealt with as business profits. From the positions taken by India (in the capacity of an OECD non-member) with regard to article 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Commentary, which use the language "reserves the right to" and "is of the view that some of the payments referred to may constitute royalties", it is not at all clear what exactly the natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o resident Indian end- users (c) cases where the distributor was a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non-resident seller, resold it to resident Indian distributors or end-users; and d) cases where the computer software was affixed onto hard ware and sold as an integrated unit or equipment by foreign, nonresident suppliers to resident Indian distributors or end-users, on the question. whether amounts paid in/ the persons resident in India to nonresident, foreign-n software suppliers, amounted to royalty, and whether it constituted taxable income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(I)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the enduser licence agreement, was not a licence in terms of section 30 of the 1957 Act, which transferred an interest in all or an of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the 1957 Act, but a licence" which imposed restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, none of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh end-user licence agreements or distribution agreements, was not royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and did not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Act were not liable to' deduct any tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. ALCATEL LUCENT CANADA [2015] 372 ITR 476 (1.)(Delhi) affirmed. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co. Ltd. 12012J 345 ITR 494 (Karn) and CIT v. SUNRAY COMPUTERS P. LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 196 (Karn) and ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in CITRIX SYSTEMS ASIA PACIFIC Pry. LTD., In re (2012] 343 ITR 1 (AAR) reversed. The real nature of the transaction must be looked at upon reading the agreement as a whole. 7.6. In view of the above, the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed." Respectfully following the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself on the similar issue and facts as referred above we don't find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ground of appeal of the revenue stan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: disallowance of advertisement expenses (Brand building expenses) of Rs. 148,06,18,804/-: 38. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee claimed expenses to the amount of Rs. 149,43,14,207/- towards advertisement. Out of aforesaid total expenses, the assessing officer treated expenditure of Rs. 148,06,18,804/- as brand building expenses incurred on sponsorship, exhibition, event, seminar, conferences and aforesaid of the nature of capital expenses. The assessing officer treated these expenses as capital in nature and allowed depreciation @ 25% on such expenses. 39. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of ITAT in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009-10 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 40. During the course of appellate proceeding before us the ld. Counsel submitted that similar issue on identical facts has been adjudicated in the case of the assessee itself by the ITAT for assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. 41. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have perused the decision of ITAT in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2011-12 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... itself admitted so. However, before us, leaned Sr. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that no such admission was made by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and under a misconception, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to such conclusion. The leaned Sr. Counsel submitted, the experience certainty campaign was also for the purpose of advertisement only and in this context, he has furnished before us the details of such expenditure through additional evidences. Since, the additional evidences furnished by the assessee will have a crucial bearing in determining the nature of expenditure, we are inclined to admit the additional evidences. However, considering the fact that these evidences were not furnished before the Departmental Authorities, to afford a fair opportunity to the Department to verify the authenticity of assessee's claim vis-a-vis the additional evidences furnished before us, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear, our aforesaid direction is only with regard to the experience certainty expenditure of Rs. 5.28 crore. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivities were predominantly the activities carried out or to be carried out by Tata Sons Limited to enhance the value of TATA Brand, which is owned by Tata Sons Limited and for same expenses were incurred by Tata Sons Limited and accounted in its books of account. 40. In the case of sister concern of assessee, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ACIT v/s M/s Rallis India Ltd.: ITA No. 5701/Mum/2008 vide order dated 30.08.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the allowance of similar contribution to Tata Sons Limited under the Brand Equity and Business Promotion Scheme. In another sister concern"s case, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in M/s Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. v/s ACIT: ITA No. 7596/Mum/2012 vide order dated 12.06.2013, following the earlier decision in Rallis India Ltd. (supra), deleted the disallowance on account of similar subscription paid to Tata Sons Ltd. towards brand equity and promotion scheme. The Co-ordinate Bench also noted that department has accepted the decision in Rallis India Ltd. (supra) and no appeal has been filed by the department against the same. Further, in the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest tha....