TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of 2007 was dismissed along with a group of appeals vide order dated 15.04.2015, as the appellant-department did not take any steps to serve the unserved respondents, however, the question of law was kept open. 3. No attempts were made by the appellant to restore the said Tax Appeal No.693 of 2007, which was dismissed by this Court on 15.04.2015. 4. Be that as it may, today we have heard the present appeal on the substantial question of law. 5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the issue and the substantial question of law, as framed and mentioned hereinabove, has already been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC), and by the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 876 of 2015 in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs. M/s. Adani Retail Ltd., as well as in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Core Healthcare Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 263 (Guj.). He has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat State F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 91 ITR 18 (SC); even as held by the Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 65 ITD 169. However, in the present case there is no inconsistency between the characterization of the amount by the assessee in its accounts as well as the return of income; adopting a uniform view of the same being a revenue expenditure, even as it choose to, a matter of accounting policy, spread the claim of the said revenue expenditure over an extended period of time in view of the inadequacy of the profits, as also perceived benefit over a longer duration. However, that by itself would not make the said expenditure to be in the nature of capital field, and neither we find it as the Revenue's case of it being so. As such, we find no infirmity in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said disallowance. The question of examining the applicability or otherwise of the provision of section 35D; the assessee's claim being admissible u/s. 37(1), would not, therefore, arise. We decide accordingly." 9. At this stage, we may mention that the Assessing Officer in his order dated 19.03.1998, after exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the Assessing Officer was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There is no estoppel against the statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed." 11. Thus, on a perusal of the observations of the Supreme Court, as mentioned hereinabove, it is manifest that there is no estoppel against the statute and the Act, which enables the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner in which it is claimed. 12. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Tax Appeal No.876 of 2015 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra). "6. Regarding the second contention of Revenue it is by now well settled by series of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court that the treatment accorded to a certain expenditure in the books of account of the assessee would not be conclusive of its true nature and on valid grounds, it would be open for the assessee before the Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as treated as "deferred revenue expenditure" and hence was capital in nature, cannot be termed to be a correct approach because insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, there is no such category of "deferred revenue expenditure". Similarly, making of an entry or absence of an entry does not determine the allowability or otherwise of the item of expenditure and the same cannot be considered to be a factor adverse, if the expenditure is otherwise of allowable nature. Every expenditure incurred by a business concern, if incurred for the purposes of business, is bound to result in some benefit, direct or indirect, immediate or after some time, but the benefit to the business cannot be termed "capital" or "revenue" only on the basis of the period for which the benefit is derived by the business. Any benefit resulting to a business need not be confined to the year of expenditure and this is an ordinary incident of a running business. In the case before Allahabad High Court in Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., In re Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., [1952] 21 ITR 353, the expenditure on advertisement had been incurred at the point of time when new branches of the Bank had to be opened and ....