In Ita/631/2018 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Spice Retail Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~119
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 631/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr.Ashok K.Manchanda, Sr.Standing Counsel. versus
SPICE RETAIL LTD
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R% 22.05.2018
..... Respondent
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
MAY 22, 2018 ndn
A. K. CHAWLA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.