The Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate
High Court
16 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate
Date of order
16 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
2011-12, 2008-09
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 291/2017
THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
versus
HONDA SEIL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate
..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
%
O R D E R16.05.2017
CM No. 14179/2018
1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 38 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
ITA No. 291/2017
2. There are two grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed against the order dated 26[th]August, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1573/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
3. As far as the issue concerning the Advertising, Marketing and Promotion expenses is concerned, it stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in the Assessee's own case in
Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 for AY 2008-09.
4. The second question concerns the provision for service coupons which the ITAT, on the facts, found to have been made on a scientific basis. Consequently, the Court does not see or find any substantial question of law arising therefrom.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 16, 2017 tp
CHANDER SHEKHAR, 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.