Dy.CIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad V. M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 272/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74439 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHESHAGIRI RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 272/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCD6737D APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO ASSESSEE BY: SRI RAVI SHESHAGIRI RAO DATE OF HEARING: 02/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/01/2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 22/11/2012 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS A GAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EDITORIAL CONTENT A ND BRAND RIGHT EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 90.80 LAKHS. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY CLAIMED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 329.34 LAKHS IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 2 PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS EXPENDIT URE IS ALSO INCLUDED RS. 90,80,000/- TOWARDS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ASIANAGE BRAND RIGHT AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE P AST EDITORIAL CONTENT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, T HE COMPANY ACQUIRED THE BRAND THE ASIAN AGE (ASIAN AGE IS AN ENGLISH DAILY NATIONAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED FROM DELHI, MUMBAI, CA LCUTTA, BANGALORE AND LONDON) AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PAST E DITORIAL CONTENT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 90.80 LAKHS AND THE ENTI RE AMOUNT OF RS. 90.80 LAKHS WAS CAPITALIZED AND SHOWN IN THE BALANC E SHEET UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TO BE WRITTEN OFF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY ADOPTED AN ACCOUNTING POLICY TO WR ITE OFF THIS EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS I.E. 120 MONT HS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE UTILITY OF SUCH BRAND RIGHT AND EDITORIAL CONTENT WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS. 90,80,000/- AND FORMED PART OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE WRITTEN OFF WHICH WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON VERIFI CATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THERE WAS NO CLAIM UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE (TO THE EXTENT NOT WRITTEN OFF OR ADJUSTED) SCHEDULE H. THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE CLAIM IS TREATED AS ASSET AND THE SAME IS INCLUDED IN THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CLAIM OF RS. 90,20,000/- IS INCLUDED IN THE DEPRECIATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY OT HER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCED AND PROPER CLAIM, REJECTING THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90,20,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I N ITS CASE FOR THE AQY 2006-07 AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED HOLDING THAT THE AMORTIZATION OF THE COST INCURRED FOR ACQUISITI ON OF BRAND RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PAST EDITORIAL CONTENT OVER A PERIOD OF 120 I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 3 MONTHS HAD HELD IT TO BE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITU RE AND ALLOWED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION IN ASSESSEES CASE IN AY 2006-07 VIDE ITA NO. 0007/ADD L CIT- 16/CIT(A)-V/2011-12, DATED 18/05/2011. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 29/04/2013 , WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS (FOR THE SAKE OF C LARITY, GROUND RAISED, FACTS, ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND FI NDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED): 9.THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS: 'THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF 2,07,00,112/- BEIN G THE EXPENSES FOR ISSUE OF SHARES TO QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 35D OF THE IT ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE SAID EXPENSES REPRESENT THE AMOUNTS ALLOWABLE I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 35D AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION.' 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEBITED RS. 90,80,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER AS EX PENDITURE TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF ASIAN AGE BRAND RIGHT EXPENS ES AND EDITORIAL CONTENT UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPE NDITURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPLAINED THE CLAIM AS UNDER 'ASIAN AGE HOLDINGS LTD. ARE THE PRINTERS AND PUBLI SHERS OF THE ENGLISH. DAILY NEWSPAPER 'ASIAN AGE' WHICH I S PUBLISHED FROM DELHI, MUMBAI, KOLKATA, BANGALORE AN D LONDON FROM THE YEAR 1994 ONWARDS. THE COMPANY ACQUIRED THE BRAND 'ASIAN AGE' AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE PAST EDITORIAL CONTENT FOR RS. 908 LAKHS IN THE LAST YEAR. I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 4 THE ACQUISITION COST WAS TREATED AS ' DEFERRED REVE NUE EXPENDITURE' KEEPING IN VIEW THE UTILITY OF SUCH BR AND RIGHT AND EDITORIAL CONTENT, THE COMPANY ADOPTED AN ACCOU NTING POLICY TO WRITE OFF THE EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD O F 10 YEARS I.E., 120 MONTHS @ RS. 90,80,000 PER YEAR' 11. THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE SECOND TIME DURING T HE A.Y. 2007-08 AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,80,000 AS A PERIOD CONS ISTS OF ONE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 GIVING D ETAILED REASONS THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). SIN CE THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IS IDENTICAL, THE SAME REASON ING ADVANCED FOR A.Y. 2007-08 APPLIES FOR THIS YEAR ALS O. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENDIT URE OF RS. 90,80,000 DISALLOWED. 12. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07, SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE DEPARTMENT NOT FILED APPEAL AGAINST THIS. AS SUCH THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT FILE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 13. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CURRENT CA SE, THE BUSINESS HAD COMMENCED EARLIER AND THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE INCURRED NEITHER FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE UNDE RTAKING NOR FOR THE SETTING UP OF NEW UNIT. AS PER THE REP LY OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SHORT TERM DEBENTURES WERE ISSUED FOR WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS, PROCURING RAW MATERIA LS AND PAYMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES IN OPERATIONS. NONE OF THESE CAN BE SAID TO BE EXTENSION OF THE UNDERTAKING OR SETTI NG UP A NEW UNIT. THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES ARE CLEARLY NOT CO VERED BY SECTION 35D. THIS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY CIT VS. SAKTHI FINANCE LTD. (256 ITR 488) (MAD) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D WOULD INAPPLICABLE TO INC REASE IN SHARE CAPITAL SUBSEQUENT TO ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINE SS. NO NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT WAS ESTABLISHED AND NO EXPANSION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL UNIT TOOK PLACE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EN TITLED TO BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 35D OF THE ACT. FURTHER IN TH E CASE OF SHREE SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS CIT (2008) 303 ITR 451 (MP), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE INCOME TAX AC T', 1961 MAKES A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IT EXCLUDES THE APPLICABILIT Y OF GENERAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT. IN OTHER WORDS , IN SUCH EVENTUALITY WHAT PREVAILS IS THE SPECIAL PROVISION OVER THE GENERAL PROVISION. SECTION 35D OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961, BEING SPECIAL AND APPLICABLE ONLY TO CERTAIN TYPES OF I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 5 EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINES S ACTIVITY, IT WILL PREVAIL OVER THE SECTION WHICH APPLIES TO THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE THEREBY EXCLUDING ITS APPLI CABILITY. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE'S CLA IM U/S. 35D WAS IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 THE C IT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS F OLLOWS: '5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THIS ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIAT ION ON THE SAME. THE APPELLANT HAS INSISTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS CLASSIFIED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET UNDER SECTION 35A AND THE BENEFITS OF THIS EXPENSE ARE AVAILABLE OVER A P ERIOD OF MANY YEARS. 5.2.1 IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT OR NOT, ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY IS THE MEANING OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 5.2.2 DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS ESSENTIALLY A N ACCOUNTING CONCEPT DENOTING EXPENDITURE, FOR WHICH A PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR A LIABILITY INCURRED, WHIC H IS ESSENTIALLY REVENUE IN NATURE BUT WHICH FOR VARI OUS REASONS (QUANTUM, PERIOD OF EXPECTED FUTURE BENEFIT , CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPACT ON THE BOTTOM LINE ETC) AN D ALSO ON THE 'PRESUMPTION' THAT THE SAME WILL RESULT IN BENEFITS OVER A SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OR PERIODS IS SPR EAD OUT AND WRITTEN-OFF OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE CAN COMPRISE DIVERSE COMPONENTS OF EXPENDITURE AND MANIFEST ITSELF IN TH E ACCOUNTS IN A WIDE VARIETY OF WAYS. FOR INSTANCE IN RECENT YEARS, THE RISING DEMAND CONSEQUENT UPON THE INCREASED PURCHASING POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE CONSUMERS HAS LED, THE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL WORL D TO INCUR MAJOR EXPENDITURES INTER-ALIA ON ADVERTISEMENT, SALES PROMOTION ETC WITH A VIEW TO ENHANCE THE VISIBILITY OF THEIR PRODUCTS AND THEREB Y INCREASE THEIR TOP-LINE. SUCH EXPENDITURE INVARIABL Y REPRESENTS EITHER OUTLAYS ON A MAJOR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN UNDERTAKEN IN DIFFERENT MEDIA WITH A VIEW TO ENHANCE THE VISIBILITY OR MODIFY THE IMAGE OF A PRODUCT; HOLDING OF CONTESTS TO EXPAND THE REACH AN D PROMOTE SALES, CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENTS, ONE-TIME SPONSORSHIP OF MEGA EVENTS, DEALERSHIP INCENTIVES A ND OTHER SUCH SIGNIFICANT SALES PROMOTION INITIATIVES WHICH GO TO INCREASE AND EXPAND THE BRAND RECALL OF I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 6 THE PRODUCTS OF A PARTICULAR COMPANY [SANJEEVA NARAYAN; THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, MAY 2006, 1626] ALTHOUGH THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ENTIRELY REVENUE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE BENEFITS ARISING THEREFROM ARE EXPECTED TO BE DERIVED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, STRETCHING SOMETIMES OVER SEVERAL ACCOUNTING PERIODS, THE BUSINESS WORLD HAS BEEN PRO NE TO TREAT SUCH EXPENDITURE AS A 'DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE' AND CONSEQUENTLY, HAS BEEN AMORTIZING THE SAME OVER THE EXPECTED TIME PERIOD OVER WHICH T HE BENEFITS ARE LIKELY TO ACCRUE THERE FROM. ACCORDING LY ONLY A PROPORTION OF THE SAME IS AMORTIZED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTME NT IS MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREBY THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 5.2.3 HOWEVER, COMING TO THE INCOME TAX ACT, FUNDAMENTALLY, ONLY TWO KINDS OF EXPENSES ARE EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED I.E., CAPITAL AND REVENUE. TH E FORMER IS NOT DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C AND IS INEXPLI CABLY LINKED TO AN ASSET, FOR WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOW ED EVERY YEAR. ON THE OTHER HAND, REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWED IN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR. 5.2.4 THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 HAS ITSELF OBSERVED THAT THE IDEA OF 'ONCE FOR ALL' PAYMENT AND 'ENDURING BENEFIT' ARE NOT TO BE TREATE D AS SOMETHING AKIN TO STATUTORY CONDITIONS; NOR ARE THE NOTIONS OF 'CAPITAL' OR 'REVENUE' A JUDICIAL FETISH . WHAT IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND WHAT IS REVENUE ARE NOT ETERNAL VERITIES BUT MUST NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE SO AS TO RESPOND TO THE CHANGING ECONOMIC REALITIES OF BUSINESS. THE EXPRESSION 'ASSET OR ADVANTAGE OF AN ENDURING NATURE' WAS EVOLVED TO EMPHASISE THE ELEMENT OF A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF DURABILITY APPROPRIATE TO THE CONTEXT. THUS WHILE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TEST OF THE ENDURING BENEFIT FAI LS AT THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF, AND EVEN IF THE SAID TEST WERE TO BE EXPLICITLY APPLIED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SA ID EXPENDITURE IS OF A CAPITAL NATURE. FURTHER, NO CAP ITAL ASSETS COME INTO BEING AS A RESULT OF THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE EXPENDITURE IS ESSENTIALLY REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE DECISION TO TREAT THE SAM E AS DEFERRED REVENUE ONLY REPRESENTS A MANAGEMENT DECISION TAKEN IN VIEW OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWABIL ITY OF ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 7 WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THE CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN THE CAPITAL AND REVENUE AND THE SAME DOES NOT RECOGNISE OF ANY CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 5.2.5 IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ SEVASHRAM LIMITED VS DY. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 480 (RAJ), THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ADVERTISEMENT DURING A YEAR CAN BE DEBITED IN PARTS OVER SEVERAL YEARS. THE ASSESSEE'S POLICY OF SPREAD ING. OVER THE EXPENSES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WAS IN ORDE R. 5.2.6 COMING TO THIS, SPECIFIC EXPENSE IN QUESTION, THE FIRST AND FOREMOST POINT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS RECOGNIZED THE EXPENSE TO BE PROPER AND FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ALLOWABLE U NDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AS BEING FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE , ALTHOUGH WHETHER IT IS REVENUE OR CAPITAL HAS TO BE DECIDED. THEREFORE, THE FIRST CONCLUSION IS THAT TH E EXPENSE HAS TO BE ALLOWED BEING FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E. THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH, THEREFORE, IS A SUBJECT MA TTER OF DEBATE IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE EXPENSE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN ONE FINANCIAL YEA R OR TO BE CAPITALIZED AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET WITH TH E ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OR IT IS TO BE TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HAVING AGREED THAT TH E EXPENSE IS GENUINE AND FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, COMPLETELY DISALLOWING THE SAME IS INCORRECT. 5.2.7 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THIS EXPENSE AS A N ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWABLE ON IT. WITH REGARD TO THE NATUR E OF EXPENSE, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT ACQUIR ED THE BRAND 'THE ASIAN AGE' AND RIGHTS OVER PAST EDITORIA L CONTEST FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9.80 CRORE. THER E IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE BRAND AS WELL AS T HE PAST EDITORIAL CONTEST WILL HAVE BENEFITS PERTAININ G TO THE APPELLANT FOR MORE THAN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR. 5.3 IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGEMENTS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS, IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO DEBIT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN ONE YEAR AS IT WOULD VIOLATE THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE EXPENSE WILL ACCRUE TO THE APPE LLANT OVER MANY FINANCIAL YEARS. BUT. IT CANNOT BE QUANTI FIED ACCURATELY AS TO HOW MUCH WOULD BE THE BENEFIT IN A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR. UNLIKE IN BONDS, WHERE QUANTIFICATIONS ARE SIMPLE AND ACCURATE, IN THIS CA SE, IT IS ULTIMATELY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS HEAD BA SED ON REALITIES OF THE INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY WHICH WILL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT BY WHICH OR THE PERCENTAGE OF BENEFIT AVAILABLE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, THE MANAGEMENT HAS DECIDED THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE EXPENSE WILL ACCRUE TO THE COMPANY OVER A PERIO D I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 8 OF 12 YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE AN Y CONTRARY INFORMATION TO INDICATE A SHORTER OR LONGE R PERIOD. 5.3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THE EXPENSE IN QUESTION IS TO BE TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE APPELLANT.' 15. BEING SO, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE I SSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. N OTHING IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). BE ING SO, FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT AGITATE THE SAME ISSUE IF IT WAS ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER A.Y. 2006-0 7. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME BY CIT(A) AFTER TAKIN G NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2006-07. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FO R FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 1844/HYD/201 1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. AS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MATERIALLY I DENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAM E, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONS IDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/01/2014. SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 02/01/2014. KV I.T.A. NO.272/HYD/2013 M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(2), ROOM NO. 611, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 2. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD., NO. 36, SD ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD