The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. By Consent, The Order Dated 17[Th] January, 2013 In Both The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1321 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1322 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8..Appellant.V/s.Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant in both the matters.Mr. F. V. Irani with Mr. B.G. Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co., for the Respondent in both the matters. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 12[th] MARCH, 2013. By consent, the order dated 17[th] January, 2013 in both the Appeals is recalled. The matter is taken up for fresh hearing. 2These Appeals by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the following questions have been raised for our consideration:- (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure incurred on production of television films and commercials for advertising the assessee's products as revenue in nature and hence deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee becomes the owner of the advertising films, which are reusable for an indefinite period of time? (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the legal fees of Rs.9,18,607/- for brand protection and trademark infringement was an allowable expenditure within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee was not the owner of such brand and/or trademark. 3So far as Question (a) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the issue raised in these appeals is covered by the decision of this Court in respect of Respondent-Assessee's case by an order dated 4[th ]July, 2012 in ITXA No.2200 of 2011 against the Revenue. In view of the above, Question (a) is not entertained. 4So far as Question (b) is concerned, this Court by order passed today (12[th] March, 2013) in ITXA (L)No.946 of 2012 has refused to entertain the identical question raised therein. For the reasons stated in our order dated 12[th] March, 2013 passed in ITXA (L) No.946 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 5 Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)