Signature Not Verified v. M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,Ita

o/o L8.O7.2OL1 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Counsel for the appellant.Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor and Mr. Ankit Gupta,Advocates for the respondent. +lTA No. 871/2O11 The return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 had reflected expenditure of Rs.6,38,01,509/- incurred onadvertisement and publicity of its brand namely "swatch" forpromotion of its business. lt is an admitted case that AssesseeCompany operates in the medium and high end luxury watchsegments in lndia. The expenditure was incurred by the assesseeon sponsorship of the events, newspaper/magazine/electronicmedia advertisement, banners, wall painting and hoardings etc. TheAssessing Officer was of the view that such expenditure will [give]benefit of enduring nature to the assessee because the expenseswill help the assessee to promote its brand and products for alonger period. On this premise the Assessing Officer amortized thetotal expenses for three years allowing deduction of LBd ofexpenses only for the year in [question ]and left 2/3'd of the expensesfor the next two years. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disallowanceby the Assessing Officer, the assessee [preferred ]appeal beforeCIT(A) and successfully challenged the aforesaid order inasmuch asthe CIT(A) allowed the entire expenditure treating the same [as]revenue in nature and also stated that there was [no ][concept ][of] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.Certify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing. a deferred revenue expenditure. The Revenue filed an appeal againstthis order of CIT(A) which has been dismissed by the Tribunal videthe impugned order dated 30th November 2010.,The Tribunal hasalso referred to the decision rendered by the Special Bench of ITATin the case of ACIT, Ahmedabad v Ashima Synthetic Ltd(citation not given in the impugned order). ln the said decision, theSpecial Bench of the Tribunal has considered a number ofjudgments including Alambic Chemicals Works Co. Ltd,v CITL77 ITR 377, Madras Industrial Development Corporation225 ITR 8O2, Kedarnath lute Manufacturing Co, Ltd, 82 ITR363 and Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v ACIT 9L lTD 2O8O,Hyderabad etc, We are of the considered opinion that theexpenditure incurred on adveftisements in the aforesaid mannerhas to be .treated as revenue in the nature and was therefore fullyallowable. This issue has been considered by this Court as well indetail in The CIT-V vs. M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,ITA No.3Lg I?OLO decided on 30th March, 2011. We, thus, find that no substantial question of law arises in thisappeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. slKRl, J, M,L.MEHTA, J. July [L8, ][2OlUawanisn]