ACIT v. Hitz FM Radio India (P) Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2017 TaxPub(DT) 1452 (Del-Trib) ACIT v. Hitz FM Radio India (P) Ltd. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Business expenditure--Brand development expenditureRevenue expenditure or capital expenditure----Brand development expenses were not more than advertisement expenses and expenditure on publicity and advertisement was to be treated as Revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred. --Assessee claimed brand development expenditure as revenue expenditure. AO made addition treating it as capital expenditure.Held: Even that the assessee made for classified part of advertisement as Brand Development Expenses the real nature was no more than a normal advertisement expenses as it included expenses on hoardings, pamphlets, advertisement behind buses expenses relating to promotional events, etc. In view of CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del), expenditure on publicity and advertisement was to be treated as revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 37 *Followed:*CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del) and Dy. CIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Guj). *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : In assessee's favour A.Y. : SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2017 TaxPub(DT) 1452 (Del-Trib)

ACIT v. Hitz FM Radio India (P) Ltd.

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Business expenditure--Brand development expenditureRevenue expenditure or capital expenditure----Brand development expenses were not more than advertisement expenses and expenditure on publicity and advertisement was to be treated as Revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred. --Assessee claimed brand development expenditure as revenue expenditure. AO made addition treating it as capital expenditure.Held: Even that the assessee made for classified part of advertisement as Brand Development Expenses the real nature was no more than a normal advertisement expenses as it included expenses on hoardings, pamphlets, advertisement behind buses expenses relating to promotional events, etc. In view of CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del), expenditure on publicity and advertisement was to be treated as revenue in nature allowable fully in the year in which it was incurred.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 37

Followed:CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 29 (Del) and Dy. CIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Guj).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :