Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 vs M/S Matrix Cellular International ... on 26 April, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).19777/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-08-2017
in ITA No. 484/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL
SERVICE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Respondent(s)
(WITH I.R. and IA No.80475/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING )
Date : 26-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Raina, Adv.
Mr. Shahab Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR
Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The learned Additional Solicitor General has addressed submissions to challenge the correctness of the Signature Not Verified findings of the High Court on the issue of advertisement Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.04.27 11:09:29 IST Reason: expenses. The High Court has adverted to two circumstances, while upholding the decision of the 2 Tribunal: firstly, for the previous Assessment Year 2008- 2009, the same view of the Tribunal regarding the allowability of advertisement expenditure as revenue expenditure has not been challenged; secondly, the High Court has adverted to its own decision in the case of CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings India (P) Ltd.1 The learned Additional Solicitor General attempted to distinguish the decision on the ground that it dealt with advertisements on hoardings. We find no substance in that distinction In our considered view, the view which has been taken by the Tribunal and, sustained by the High Court, does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
1 207 Taxman 5 (Del.)