Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iii v. M/S.amar Tea Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1084 OF 2004 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2200 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.648 OF 2007 Commissioner of Income-tax-III ..Appellant Versus M/s.Amar Tea Ltd., ..Respondent ---- Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Tralshawala with Mr.V.S.Hadade for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 20.02.2008 PC 1. The assessee has preferred these appeals on the following question :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,17,09,581/- which was made by the assessing officer on account of the alleged advertisement expenses ignoring the fact that the said expenditure was incurred without any contractual liability and not for the purpose of the business of assessee but to : 2 : benefit certain relatives of the directors of the assessee ? 2. This issue arose for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-2002. In so far as assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, revenue has not preferred any appeal. In so far as assessment year 1996-97, the appeal filed has been dismissed for failure to remove office objections. 3. The appeal is against two concurrent findings of fact of Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT. 4. The issue pertains to for expenses towards advertisement incurred by the assessee in advertising the brand name in terms of the agreement which they had with the holder of the brand. Both Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT have recorded findings of fact that these expenses were allowable. Considering the fact that revenue has not preferred appeal for 2 years, the fact that another year appeal has been dismissed and there are concurrent findings of fact, we do not find the question as framed would arise and consequently, appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)