Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.84 seconds)Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
At the cost of repetition, we further hold that the
Assessing Officer is not empowered to entertain the claim for deduction of
the assessee, after filing of return otherwise than by filing a revised return
but the powers of this Tribunal as an appellate authority u/s 254 of the Act
do not impinge upon by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Goetze India Ltd. vs C.I.T. (supra).
Section 115WB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mr. Kantilal T. Sanghvi, K. Sanghvi And ... vs Acit on 21 January, 2003
13. In view of above decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the assessee
of the present case offered different schemes through a scratch card and
purchaser/customer of a specific item manufactured by the assessee is
offered various items as gift. In the present case also, the revenue did not
invoke clause O to sub-section (2) to section 115WB of the Act. The
assessee's claim has been rejected by the Assessing Officer on legal issue by
holding that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to entertain the claim
of the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return. During the hearing
before us, the DR fairly accepted that it was not the contention of the
revenue that the items were given to the customers free of cost as gifts. The
gifts are given or presented without consideration but in the present case,
consideration was in-built as customer was paying consideration for
purchase of a specific item manufactured by the assessee and the gift items
15 ITA No.2006/D/11, 4652, 4653/D/12
Asstt.Year: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10
given to the purchasers/customers by the dealer on behalf of the assessee
were akin to providing discount or rebate, instead of said amount being paid
in cash or being reduced from the sale price, gift items were provided to the
customers/purchaser, but no specific payment was made by them for these
gift items. Accordingly, these cannot be classified as gifts for which no
consideration has been paid by the customers. Therefore, respectfully
following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the
case of T&T Motors Ltd. vs ACIT (supra), we hold that as per CBDT
Circular No. 8 of 2005 dated 28.9.2005, question no. 60 clarifies that
discount or rebates are not liable to FBT and present case of the assessee
falls within four corners of above decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of T&T Motors vs ACIT (supra) and CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2005.
Therefore, we find it just and proper that the claim for deduction of the
assessee is allowable.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S India Pistons Limited on 1 December, 2009
The term "sales promotion" is not to be confused with the
sales actually effected. While "sales promotion" are
measures taken by the assessee to promote generally the
sales of the products manufactured by it, or dealt with by
it, individual sales made in the normal course of business
on commercial terms either directly to the customer, or
through its wholesale and other dealers to whom, under
the terms of trade discounts and commissions are allowed,
cannot be regarded as sales promotion. This court in the
case of CIT v. India Pistons Ltd. MANU/TN/043412001 :
(2001) 250 ITR 279 has held that sale of a product at a
discount did not amount to a sales promotion expense. It
was observed in that judgment that:
1