In this Special Leave Petition, the High Court of Delhi affirmed the ITAT's ruling limiting advertising and training expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding no substantial question of law.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~119
SPICE RETAIL LTD ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
The Revenue’s appeal questions the decision of the ITAT which affirmed the CIT(A)’s order on the advertising and training expenditure incurred and reported by the assessee. It is contended that the assessee merely retails mobile handsets and does not in any manner promote the product nor is involved in its manufacture. The CIT(A) by a detailed order was of the opinion that the expenditure cannot be said to result in enduring capital advantage to the brand owner and that it is appropriately fallen into revenue stream. The ITAT has concurred with this view and upheld that the expenditure could be limited under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court is of the opinion that since both the findings are concurrent no substantial question of law arises.
Appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MAY 22, 2018 ndn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revenue's appeal resulting in the affirmation and limitation of advertising and training expenditure under Section 37 raises a substantial question of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax
Spice Retail Ltd
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
