The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1321 OF 2012WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1322 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ..Appellantversus Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd...Respondent -------- Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Niraj Seth with Mr. B.G.Yewale for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE: 17[th] January, 2013 P.C. : These appeals by the revenue, for 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 infringementwasanallowable 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. 2Counsel for the appellant as well as respondent state that issue raised in these appeals is covered by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case by an order dated 04.07.2012 in ITXA No. 2200 of 2011. In view of the above decision, question (a) is covered against the revenue. Therefore, question (a) cannot be entertained. 3So far as, question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the impugned order in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The revenue has not challenged the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. No case has been made out by the revenue to take a different view in this case. Accordingly, question (b) cannot be entertained. 4 Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)