Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA
January, 10th 2015
$~R-14,15 & 16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Date of decision: 24th November, 2014.
+                              ITA 1297/2010


       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                    ..... Appellant
               Through     Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel
               with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel.

                               versus

       DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA        ..... Respondent
               Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

                               ITA 1101/2011


       CIT                                                   ..... Appellant
                       Through     Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel
                       with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel.

                               versus

       DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA        ..... Respondent
               Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

                               ITA 489/2013


       THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -IV..... Appellant
               Through     Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel
               with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel.

                    versus
       DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA ..... Respondent
               Through     Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                       Page 1 of 18
        SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

               Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260A of

        the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act, for short) relating to assessment

        years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 in the case of the

        respondent-assessee, Discovery Communication India. In the

        three appeals the following questions were framed for hearing

        and adjudication:-

        ITA 1297/2010 (Assessment Year 2002-03)

               "a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in
               short "tribunal") was correct in law and on facts in
               affirming the order of Commissioner of Income
               Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"] whereby the
               CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.
               2,61,54,952/- added by the Assessing Officer inter
               alia on the ground that there was no obligation on
               the part of the assessee to incur huge advertisement
               expenses?

                b) Whether the tribunal while deleting the
               disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was
               correct in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that
               the assessee has acted as agent of the foreign
               company for booking advertisement?"

        ITA 1101/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04)

               "(1)   Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
               was correct in law and on fact in affirming the
               order of CIT (A), whereby the CIT(A) has deleted
               the addition of Rs.67.15 lacs made by the
               Assessing Officer while disallowing the
               proportional advertisement expenses?

               (2)     Whether the order of the Income Tax
               Appellate Tribunal, which is a final fact authority,
               is not perverse as it has not gone through the facts
ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                        Page 2 of 18
               properly and merely relied on its own order for the
               A.Y. 2002-03?"

        ITA 489/2013 (Assessment Year 2004-05)
             "Whether the Assessing Officer was right in
               making addition of Rs.1,24,18,732/- on account of
               disallowance of proportionate advertisement
               expenditure?"

        2.     The respondent-assessee is a company and during the

        years in question was a subsidiary of M/s. Discovery Channel

        Mauritius (98% shares), M/s. Discovery Communication, LLC,

        USA (1% shares) and M/s. Discovery Productions Inc., USA

        (1% shares).

        3.     The respondent-assessee was engaged in the business of

        distribution, marketing and production of high quality

        educational and entertainment satellite television programmes

        for satellite television Channels i.e. Discovery and Animal

        Planet.

        Assessment Year 2002-03

        4.1.   In the return of income filed for assessment year 2002-03,

        the respondent-assessee had declared ,,nil income after setting

        off brought forwards losses of Rs.4,85,39,897/-. This return was

        subsequently revised but again declaring ,,nil income after

        adjustment of brought forward losses of Rs.4,82,34,363/-.

        4.2.   During the period relevant to the assessment year 2002-


ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                      Page 3 of 18
        03, the respondent-assessee had shown programmes sourcing fee

        of Rs.5,20,91,937/-, facilitation fees of Rs.1,28,75,927/-,

        subscription fees of Rs 23,46,50,460, agency commission and

        marketing commission fee of Rs.3,69,91,065/-, programming

        revenue of Rs.65,00,000/- and other income of Rs.54,75,642/-.

        4.3.   The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had

        shown gross advertisement revenue of Rs.15,12,06,722/-, but

        only 15% i.e., Rs.2,30,26,266/- had been credited to the profit

        and loss accounts as commission earned on advertisement

        revenue and the balance amount had been paid/repatriated to the

        foreign associated enterprises abroad. He opined and considered

        that the advertisement expenses to the tune of Rs.2,61,54,952/-

        were exorbitant, as the assessee had declared taxable

        advertisement receipts of Rs.2,30,26,266/-.       Advertisement

        expenses of Rs. 2,61,54,952, he observed were unjustified as the

        assessee had retained 15% of the total advertisement sale

        revenue and not the entire or 100% of the advertisement

        revenue. He rejected the contention of the assessee that

        advertisements expenses incurred were relatable to earning

        subscription fee of more than Rs. 23.46 crores, the major source

        of income/receipt. The Assessing Officer held that the

        subscription revenue collected from the cable operators did not




ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                  Page 4 of 18
        require advertisement expenses.          Accordingly, 100% or the

        entire advertisement expenditure of Rs.2,61,54,952/- was

        disallowed as non-business expenditure or as expenditure not

        relateable to the respondent-assessees business, but business of

        the associated enterprises resident abroad.

        ITA 1101/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04)

        5.1.   The respondent-assessee filed a return declaring ,,nil

        income.      In the profit and loss account, the assessee had

        disclosed     programme       sourcing   fee   of     Rs.4,22,48,648/-,

        superscription fees of Rs.3,74,99,0580/-, agency commission of

        Rs.4,59,53,913/-, marketing income of Rs.14,62,341/- and other

        income of Rs.13,71,488/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that

        that advertisement sale commission of Rs.2.78 crores was

        earned, whereas the assessee had claimed advertisement

        expenses of Rs.2,37,57,000/-. Rs.2.78 crores was only 15% of

        the total receipts and the balance 85% had been transferred or

        paid to the related or associated enterprise abroad. He rejected

        the assessees submission that advertisement expenditure was

        relatable to subscription revenue of Rs.37.49 crores and the said

        expenditure had to be incurred in terms of the licence agreement,

        which required the assessee to publicize and increase the reach

        and viewership of the two channels.                 The advertisement

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                         Page 5 of 18
        expenses, he held, had direct nexus with the advertisement

        revenue. The Assessing Officer then observed that as the

        assessee had retained 15% of the advertisement revenue as sale

        commission and the balance 85% had been repatriated or paid to

        the associated enterprises abroad, therefore advertisement

        expenses of Rs.2.37 crores should not be entirely disallowed.

        This,     he        observed,   would      be     unreasonable,        therefore

        advertisement expenses of Rs.67.15 Lacs were disallowed.

        ITA 489/2013 (Assessment Year 2004-05)

        5.2.    For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee had filed

        return declaring income of Rs.17,87,44,860/-. In the profit and

        loss accounts, the assessee had shown programme sourcing

        receipt        of      Rs.2,54,16,606/-,        superscription         fees      of

        Rs.39,89,28,282/-, agency commission of Rs.7,03,47,271/-,

        marketing fee of Rs.5,86,783/-                    and other income of

        Rs.1,00,16,153/-.          The Assessing Officer noticed that the

        assessee had shown advertisement sale commission of

        Rs.5,32,44,990/-,         which    was     only     15%     of    the         gross

        advertisement receipts. He referred to the assessment order for

        the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and held that 85% of

        the advertisement receipts had been transferred to the associated

        enterprises abroad. The assessee had pleaded and urged that it

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                             Page 6 of 18
        was under a contractual obligation as per the license agreement

        to publicize and promote the two channels, and had earned

        subscription revenue of Rs.39.89 crores, which was directly

        relatable to the advertisement expenses of Rs.3.10 crores, but the

        Assessing Officer did not agree. The assessing officer quantified

        the disallowance at Rs 1,24,18,732, as advertisement expenses

        relatable to 85% of the advertisement sale receipts transferred to

        the associated enterprises abroad.

        First Appeal and Order of the Tribunal.

        6.     The respondent-assessee succeeded in the first appeal

        before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Appeals

        filed by the Revenue stand dismissed by the Income tax

        Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) vide its impugned

        orders.

        Factual findings as recorded by the tribunal and the legal

        effect of said findings on merits:-

       7.      The comprehensive and perspicuous finding of the

        appellate authorities is that advertisement expenditure was

        incurred in terms of the license agreement granting the

        distribution rights to the assessee by the associated enterprise,

        Discovery Asia Inc.           Under this agreement, the respondent-

        assessee had procured right to distribute the signals of Discovery

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                      Page 7 of 18
        Channel and Animal Planet Channel and right to collect revenue

        arising or generated from distribution. Accordingly, the assessee

        had received subscription revenue of Rs 23.46 crores, Rs. 37.49

        crores and Rs. 39.89 crores from the cable operators in the three

        assessment years. The agreement mandated and required that the

        assessee to develop and expand viewership of the Discovery

        Channel and Animal Planet Channel, which had started with a

        status of a "free to air channel" and made transition to a "pay

        channel".      Increased viewership obviously meant increased

        subscription revenue and earnings. It was manifest and self-

        evident that the assessee would have undertaken publicity,

        advertisement and incurred expenditure on increasing awareness

        and greater market retention, penetration and expansion. Thus,

        the finding of the appellate authorities was that advertisement

        expenditure was related to and had direct nexus with the licence

        agreement for distributorship and subscription fee collection.

        8.      There was a separate agreement between the respondent-

        assessee and associate enterprises under which the assessee had

        acted    as    an    advertisement   sale   representative.      As   an

        advertisement sale representative, the assessee was entitled to

        15% of the gross receipts as its income for the services rendered

        and performed by them. The balance 85% was transferred to the

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                       Page 8 of 18
        associated enterprise abroad.

        9.     The     Assessing      Officers   enigmatic and         equivocal

        pronouncement that the entire advertisement revenue should

        have been retained as income is mere an incantation.                The

        programmes were prepared and aired in India by the foreign

        associate enterprise, which had incurred expenditure or paid for

        the software and airing them. The finding that the entire or

        100% expenditure on advertisement expenses were incurred for

        higher and increased advertisement revenue, is fanciful and

        reflects a spirit of creativity than realism. Unintendedly, the

        Assessing officer, as noticed below, impeached and transgressed

        into the domain of international transaction price fixation,

        without realising that the Transfer Pricing officer had accepted

        the price. The Assessing Officer, as noticed below under section

        37(1) of the Act, cannot go into the question of reasonableness

        of advertisement or any other expense.

        9.1.   The Assessing Officer, thus, fallaciously and wrongly

        held that the entire expenditure, on advertisement, incurred by

        the assessee related only to the advertisement sales commission

        or receipt and was not incurred to increase subscription fee by

        promoting the two channels. Noticeable, the entire subscription

        fee was retained by the assessee and nothing was repatriated or

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                     Page 9 of 18
        paid to the associated enterprises abroad.

               Section 37 (1) of the Act.

       10.     Under Section 37(1) of the Act any expenditure not being

       in the nature of expenditure described in Sections 30 to 36 of the

       Act, has to be allowed as a deduction in computing income

       chargeable under the head "Profit and Gains from Business and

       Profession", if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) it is not

       capital expenditure; (b) it is not personal expenditure; and (c) it

       should be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of

       business.

       10.1. The first two conditions are negative in nature, while the

       third condition or requirement is positive. It is not the case of

       the Revenue that the expenditure on advertisement was capital or

       personal in nature. The expression ,,expenditure denotes idea of

       spending or paying out. It is not the case of the Revenue that the

       expenditure was not incurred or was not genuine, but fictious.

       10.2. The question raised is whether the expenditure was wholly

       and exclusively for the purpose of assessees business. The

       words ,,wholly and exclusively though not synonymous, and are

       sufficiently wide, but are not restricted to expenditure solely

       incurred for the purpose of earning of profits. For an amount

       spent as an admissible expenditure under Section 37(1), the

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                     Page 10 of 18
       same should be for the purpose of business and not for the

       purpose of earning income. (see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs.

       CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) and CIT vs. Birla Spinning and

       Weavings Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC). In CIT v. Malayalam

       Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC), it has been observed :

                               "The expression "for the purpose of the
                       business" is wider in scope than the expression
                       "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is
                       wide : it may take in not only the day to day
                       running of a business but also the rationalization
                       of its administration and modernization of its
                       machinery; it may include measures for the
                       preservation of the business and for the protection
                       of its assets and property from expropriation,
                       coercive process or assertion of hostile title; it
                       may also comprehend payment of statutory dues
                       and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to
                       commence or for carrying on of a business; it may
                       comprehend many other acts incidental to the
                       carrying on of a business."

               Thus, any expenditure which is laid down for business

       which in the present case consisted of distribution of channels

       and earning of subscription revenue, advertisement agency

       commission etc. would be wholly and exclusively for the

       purpose of business.

       10.3. Whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively

       incurred or laid out for the purpose of business of profession,

       must be determined from the angle and as per the assessees

       perspective and choice. It is subjective. What one assessee may

       want to incur, another may not like to incur the same or similar

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                           Page 11 of 18
       expenditure. The quantum may also differ and vary. Section

       37(1) does not curtail or prevent an assessee from incurring an

       expenditure which he feels and wants to incur for the purpose of

       business.      Expenditure incurred may be direct or may even

       indirectly benefit the business in form of increased turnover,

       better profit, growth etc. As long as the expenditure incurred is

       "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of business, the

       Assessing Officer cannot by applying of his own mind, disallow

       whole or a part of the expenditure. The Assessing Officer cannot

       question the reasonableness by putting himself in the arm-chair

       of the businessman and assume status or character of the

       assessee. However, exception can be created by a statutory

       provision like Section 40A(2), when the revenue as per the

       statutory mandate may have jurisdiction to examine the issue of

       price/consideration. For incurring advertisement expenditure, in

       the relevant years, there were no statutory stipulations.

       10.4. When expenditure is incurred for assessees own business,

       the mere fact that the expenditure would inure or benefits a third

       party or the third party incidentally obtains some advantage,

       would not affect or distract from the finding that the expenditure

       was wholly and exclusively was for assessees business. For

       example, a retail trader may advertise different products which

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                    Page 12 of 18
       may incidentally benefit the manufacturers, but this does not

       mean that advertisement expenditure fails to meet the

       requirement of "wholly and exclusively". Law in this regard is

       well settled. Relevant would be to refer to authoritative

       pronouncement of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chandulal

       Keshavlal& Co., Petlad, [1960] 38 ITR 601, observing: -

                       "In deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible
                       expenditure one has to take into consideration questions of
                       commercial expediency and the principles of ordinary
                       commercial trading. If the payment or expenditure is
                       incurred for the purpose of the trade of the assessee it does
                       not matter that the payment may inure to the benefit of a
                       third party (Usher's Wiltshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce [6 Tax
                       Cas 399]. Another test is whether the transaction is properly
                       entered into as a part of the assessee's legitimate commercial
                       undertaking in order to facilitate the carrying on of its
                       business; and it is immaterial that a third party also benefits
                       thereby (Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [(1951)SCR594].
                       But in every case it is a question of fact whether the
                       expenditure was expended wholly and exclusively for the
                       purpose of trade or business of the assessee. In the present
                       case the finding is that it was laid out for the purpose of the
                       assessee's business and there is evidence to support this
                       finding."

       In CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club, [1961] 41 ITR 414, Supreme court

followed the earlier judgment in Chandulal Keshavlal(supra) to hold : -


                       "The question as to whether the expenses of running the
                       school for jockeys is deductible has to be decided taking
                       into consideration the circumstances of this case. The
                       business of the respondent was to run race meetings on a
                       commercial scale for which it is necessary to have races of
                       as high an order as possible. For the popularity of the races
                       run by the respondent and to make its business profitable it
                       was necessary that there were jockeys of requisite skill and


ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                            Page 13 of 18
                       experience in sufficient numbers who would be available to
                       the owners and trainers because without such efficient
                       jockeys the running of race meetings would not be
                       commercially profitable. It was for this purpose that the
                       respondent started the school for training Indian
                       jockeys...... Therefore any expenditure which was incurred
                       for preventing the extinction of the respondent's business
                       would, in our opinion, be expenditure wholly and
                       exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business of the
                       assessee and would be an allowable deduction. This finds
                       support from decided cases. In CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal
                       & Co. [(1951) SCR 594 ] this Court held that in order to
                       justify a deduction the disbursement must be for reasons of
                       commercial expediency; it may be voluntary but incurred
                       for the assessee's business; and if the expense is incurred for
                       the purpose of the business of the assessee it does not matter
                       that the payment also enures to the benefit of a third party."


       In Sassoon J. David and Co Pvt Ltd, Bombay v. CIT, Bombay, (1979) 3

SCC 524, the Supreme Court has held: -


                       "21. The next contention urged on behalf of the Department
                       was that since Davids and Tatas were indirectly benefited by
                       the retrenchment of the services of the employees of the
                       Company and payment of compensation to them and since
                       there was no necessity to retrench the services of all the
                       employees, the expenditure in question could not be treated
                       as an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for
                       business purposes of the Company. It has to be observed
                       here that the expression "wholly and exclusively" used in
                       Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean "necessarily".
                       Ordinarily it is for the assessee to decide whether any
                       expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its
                       business. Such expenditure may be incurred voluntarily and
                       without any necessity and if it is incurred for promoting the
                       business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim
                       deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act even though
                       there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure.
                       It is relevant to refer at this stage to the legislative history of
                       Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which corresponds
                       to Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. An attempt was made in the

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                              Page 14 of 18
                       Income Tax Bill of 1961 to lay down the ,,necessity of the
                       expenditure as a condition for claiming deduction under
                       Section 37. Section 37(1) in the Bill read "any expenditure
                       ... laid out or expended wholly, necessarily and exclusively
                       for the purposes of the business or profession shall be
                       allowed ...." The introduction of the word "necessarily" in
                       the above section resulted in public protest. Consequently
                       when Section 37 was finally enacted into law, the word
                       ,,necessarily came to be dropped. The fact that somebody
                       other than the assessee is also benefited by the expenditure
                       should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed
                       by way of deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it
                       satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by law."



       11.     As per the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the

       Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the respondent

       assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of

       television channels and had retained 100% of the subscription

       fee. As per the agreement between the respondent assessee and

       the associated enterprise, it was the obligation and the duty of

       the respondent assessee to advertise and promote the channels.

       Similarly, the assessing was acting as a selling agent for

       advertisements to be aired on the channels. It was entitled to

       retain 15% of the gross-receipts as income and pass on or

       transfer 85% of the gross receipts to the foreign enterprises.

       12.     Thus, one of the functions being performed by the

       assessee was to advertise and promote the channels and to earn

       subscription revenue. Another function was to secure/procure





ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                          Page 15 of 18
       advertisements. The assessee earned 15% commission for the

       last mentioned function. The assessee was earning revenue in

       view of the said functions being performed.           Expenditure

       incurred on advertisement was clearly relateable and laid out for

       the purpose of business of the respondent assessee and was not

       extraneous or unconnected with the same.        Consequently, it

       could not have been disallowed as was done by the Assessing

       Officer on the ground that it was not laid or incurred wholly or

       exclusively for the purpose of business.

       Difference between expenditure incurred and price paid for

       functions performed.

       13.     The Assessing Officer has failed to notice the difference

       between expenditure incurred by the            assessee towards

       advertisement and publicity and the price paid to the assessee by

       the associated foreign enterprise for services rendered etc. The

       first relates to expenditure or an outgoing paid for the business.

       The second relates to income or price paid for the transactions

       between the respondent assessee and the associated enterprise

       and which would constitute an international transaction. The

       second aspect is linked and connected with the income earned

       i.e. price paid for the service rendered, goods sold etc. An

       international transaction with an associated enterprise can be

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                  Page 16 of 18
       subjected to transfer pricing adjustment under Chapter X of the

       Act read with the applicable rules by the Transfer Pricing

       Officer by applying functions performed, risk assumed and the

       asset deployed, criteria/principle. The Transfer Pricing Officer is

       required to select appropriate method specified in section 92C of

       the Act and determine/compute the arms length price. In the

       present case, the Transfer Pricing Officer did not make any

       adjustment and has accepted the transfer pricing between the

       respondent assessee and the related enterprises i.e. the

       compensation paid or retained by the respondent assessee in

       view of the functions performed, risk assumed and asset

       deployed etc.

       14.     Once, we hold that one of the functions to be performed

       by the respondent assessee was to incur advertisement and

       promotion expenditure, then the expenditure incurred for the

       said purpose should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act,

       as incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of the said

       assessee. In such cases, as in present case, disallowance made by

       the Assessing Officer treating the advertisement expenditure as

       non-business expenditure must fail and flounder. However,

       adequate compensation/price should be paid for the same by the

       associated enterprise, with reference to the functions, risk and

ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                   Page 17 of 18
       assets. In case, the respondent-assessee was not being paid

       adequate consideration or compensated by its associated

       enterprise, necessary adjustments could have been made by the

       Transferring Pricing Officer in accordance with the Act. It is an

       accepted position that the Transfer Pricing Officer did not deem

       it appropriate and proper to make any adjustment in respect of

       these international transactions. The price received by the

       assessee for the international transaction was accepted by the

       Transfer Pricing Officer.

       15.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that
       advertisement and promotion expenditure was rightly treated, by
       the tribunal, as one of the functions which the respondent
       assessee was mandated and required to perform for the purpose
       of his business and would, therefore, be allowable as a business
       expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.
       16.     In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question No.1
       in all the three appeals is answered in favour of the respondent-
       assessee and against the revenue. The question No.2 in ITA
       Nos. 1297/2010 and 1101/2011 is also answered in favour of the
       respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue.
               The appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.


                                               SANJIV KHANNA, J.


                                           V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
        NOVEMBER 24, 2014
        NA
ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013                    Page 18 of 18

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Portal Design Website Design Portal Designing Website Designing Web Design Professional Portal Design Professional Website Design Professional Web Design Portal Design India Website Design India Portal Designing India Website Designing India Web Design India Professional Portal Design India Professional Website Design India Chicago Professional Web Design New York Professional Web Design California Website Design Florida Website Design New Jersey Website Design Britain UK Website Design London Manchester Website Design

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions