DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI V. HAR PARSHAD AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH EAST DELHI

ITA 2909/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which allowed the deduction of Rs. 2,20,25,277 claimed by M/s. Har Parshad and Company Pvt. Ltd. for 'brand promotion expenses' under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the expenses incurred for brand promotion should be considered capital in nature as they pertain to an intangible asset, thus not deductible. The Tribunal referenced its previous rulings for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669345 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2014-15, Hon'ble ITAT for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2909/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi Vs. M/s. Har Parshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., 155, Upper Ground Floor Phase III, Okhla Industrial Estate, S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAACH0131J (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063552901(1), dated 28.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Aman Garg, CA Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.06.2025 ITA No.2909/Del/2024 2 | P a g e Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,25,277/- on account of \"Brand Promotion Expenses\", ignoring the fact that the brand name is an intangible asset and expenditure incurred to increase the brand value will be in capital in nature? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,20,25,277/- on account of \"Brand Promotion Expenses\" by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2014-15 which was based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT itself for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 in which such issue was never been discussed? 3. That the department craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is finally heard or disposed of. 3. Mr. Dhanesta vehemently argues that the learned CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee’s claim of “brand promotion expenses” amounting to Rs.2,20,25,277/- relying upon this tribunal’s order in earlier assessment years which had nowhere decided the same against the department. As against this, the assessee has invited our attention to the tribunal’s order in its appeal ITA No.7622/Del/2017 for preceding assessment year 2014-15 dated 14.02.2023; as rectified subsequently on 12th September, 2023 in M.A. No. 148/Del/2023 (pages 59 to 63 of the paper-book), accepting the very deduction claim of “brand promotion expenses”. That being the case, we find no merit in the ITA No.2909/Del/2024 3 | P a g e Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance which is hereby dismissed by following judicial consistency. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th June, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "