Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 7, v. Rose Advertising Private Limited

Delhi HC18 Apr 2017ITA/237/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed Revenue's appeal against ITAT order, dismissing appeals on issues regarding revenue expenditure, additions under section 68, and commission payments, finding no substantial question of law on permiting additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeals against ITAT orders allowed; issues regarding expenditure, section 68 addition, and commission payments dismissed.

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 7, Vs Rose Advertising… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~3 to 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 237/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 7,..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

ROSE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates

¶6

WITH

¶7

- ITA 238/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 7,..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

¶8

versus

¶9

ROSE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates

¶10

WITH

¶11

- ITA 239/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 7..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

¶12

versus

¶13

ROSE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates

¶14

WITH

¶15

ITA 237/2017; 238/2017; 239/2017 & 240/2017

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

- ITA 240/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 7..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

¶18

versus

¶19

ROSE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates

¶20

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶21

O R D E R % 18.04.2017 CM Nos. 12136-12138/2017

¶22

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶23

ITA Nos. 237-240/2017

¶24

The issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeals, which are directed against the common order dated 20^th September, 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 2293/Del/2013 for AY 2008-2009, 2827/Del/2013 for AY 2008-2009, 2294/Del/2013 for AY 2009-2010 and 2828/Del/2013 for AY 2009-2010, are as under:

¶25

“A. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that the expenditure on construction of Dhallows is allowable revenue expenditure and eligible for amortisation over a period of three years?

¶26

B. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. ITAT erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act when creditworthiness of ITA 237/2017; 238/2017; 239/2017 & 240/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶27

parties could not be established?

¶28

C. Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. ITAT erred in deleting the commission payments disallowed by the Ld. AO, ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to establish the nexus and justification of the commission payments vis-à-vis the services availed and that a portion of the commission was paid to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act?”

¶29

In these appeals, during the course of arguments, a further issue was raised as to whether the CIT (A) was justified in permitting additional evidence to be led during the pendency of appeals.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the Respondent, the Court is of the view that the orders of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT on the above issues turned purely on facts. Cogent reasons have been given by the CIT (A) for permitting additional evidence to be led. The impugned order of the ITAT does not give rise to any substantial question of law in regard to any of the above issues.

¶31

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶32

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶33

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶34

APRIL 18, 2017/ tp

¶35

ITA 237/2017; 238/2017; 239/2017 & 240/2017

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 7, v. Rose Advertising Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 7, v. Rose Advertising Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs Gulbarga Associates(P)Limited

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs Gulbrga Associates (P)Limited

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs Gulbarga Associates (P)Limited

Corning S.A. Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-8 Vs Samsung Electronics India Information & Telecommunications Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International TAXATION)1 Vs Comptel Oyj