M/s. Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

ITA 3572/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 357220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4427/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 9(1), VS. SURENDRA BUILDTECH PVT. L TD., NEW DELHI. J-3/19, DLF, QUTAB ENCLAVE, PHASE-II, GURGAON. PAN: AAICS 0538 E AND ITA NO. 3572/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 SURENDRA BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 9(1) , J-3/19, DLF, QUTAB ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. PHASE-II, GURGAON. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI DATE OF HEARING : 27-08-2014 DATE OF ORDER : 05-09-2014. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : THESE CROSS APPEALS, BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-05-2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI, IN APPEAL NO. 399/11-12, RELATING TO A. Y. 2009-10. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A REAL ESTATE DEALER/ AGENT/ BROKER, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WAS INVOL VED IN FRESH BOOKINGS OF THE LAUNCHED PROJECTS OF BIG BUILDERS/ DEVELOPERS A ND WAS AN AUTHORIZED DEALER/ AGENT/ BROKER OF VARIOUS DEALERS/ DEVELOPER S. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AS AND WHEN A BUILDER ANNOUNC ES ITS PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE USED TO UNDERWRITE THE BUILDERS/ DEVELOPER S PROJECT AND THEN IN TURN STARTS BOOKING OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH VARIOUS SUB- DEALERS/ AGENTS/ BROKERS, AS AND WHEN DIRECTED BY ITSELF. FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOOKINGS, THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED OFFICES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND ALSO OP ENED TEMPORARY OFFICES AT THE PROJECT SITES OF THE DEVELOPER. 2.1. THE PERSONS WHO MANAGED AND CONTROLLED THE OFF ICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF BOOKINGS WERE ALLOWED SUB-COMMISSIONS INSTEAD OF REMUNERATION AND SIMILARLY THE SUB-DEALERS/ AGENTS/ BROKERS WHO WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN PROCURING THE BOOKINGS WERE ALSO ALLOWED SUB-COMMIS SIONS. ON ALL THE SUB- COMMISSIONS, AS PAID AND ALLOWED TO VARIOUS SUCH PE RSONS, THE TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND ALL THE PERSONS WERE RE GULAR INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND WERE IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE S INCE LAST SO MANY YEARS. 2.2. THE PERSONS WHO HAD APPLIED FOR THE LAUNCHED O RIGINAL BOOKINGS DIRECTLY THEMSELVES, IN THEIR OWN NAMES, THE ASSESS EE ALLOWED THEM INCENTIVE/ DISCOUNT AGAINST THEIR BOOKINGS ON ACCOU NT OF COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. 2.3. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING INCOME OF RS. 30,62,480/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 46,88,350/- BY MAKING FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: 3 (I) DISALLOWANCE ON A/C OF MARKETING EXPENSES INCLUDING INCENTIVE AND DISCOUNT RS. 4,43,927/- (II) DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION RS. 5,50,970/- (III) 20% OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES RS. 1,57,740/- 2.4. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DI SALLOWANCES MADE ON A/C OF MARKETING EXPENSES (INCLUDING INCENTIVE AND DISC OUNT), COMMISSION AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% IN RESPECT OF AD VERTISEMENT EXPENSES. 2.5. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCES IN RESPONDENT OF MARKETING EXPENSES (INCLUDING INCENTIVE AND DISCOUNT), COMMISSION AND RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES T O 10% AS AGAINST 20% MADE BY THE AO, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL A GAINST THE PART SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE @ 10% IN RESPECT OF ADVE RTISEMENT EXPENSES. 3. GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL CHALLENGES THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,43,927/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF MARK ETING EXPENSES INCLUSIVE OF INCENTIVE AND DISCOUNTS. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AT THE OUT SET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ITAT D ELHI BENCH G ORDER DATED 27-5-2011 IN ITA NO. 4854/DEL/2010, RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 194H HAS A DI RECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT IS SALUTARY UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SECTION WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 194H. COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2001, TO A RESIDENT, ANY INCOME BY WAY OF COMMISSION (NOT BEING INSURANCE COMMISSION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 194D) OR BROKERAGE, SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME O F PAYMENT OF SUCH INCOME IN CASH OR BY THE ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT INCOME-TAX THEREON AT THE RATE O F TEN PER CENT: PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH INCOME OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, THE PAYEE, DOES NOT EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHOSE TOTAL SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 44AB DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE IS CREDITED OR PAID, SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME-TAX UNDER THIS SECTION: PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION OR ANY COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE PAYMENT BY BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED OR 5 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED TO THEIR PUBLIC CALL OFFICE FRANCHISEES. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION :- (I) COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR SERVICES RENDERED (NOT BEING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) OR FOR ANY SERVICES IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS OR IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING SECURITIES; XXXX 6. THE EXPRESSION COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE HAS BEE N EXPLAINED IN THE EXPLANATION APPENDED TO THIS SECTI ON. ACCORDING TO THE MEANING PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATIO N, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE CONSIDERED, IF ANY PERSON RECEI VED IT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED, AND SUCH SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE PERSO N TO WHOM DISCOUNT WAS GRANTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACTIN G AS AN AGENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, RATHER THEY ARE THE PURCHAS ER OF THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY TYPE OF SERVIC ES TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE JUST BOOKED THE FLAT THROUGH TH E ASSESSEE. IN FACT, ASSESSEE IS AN AGENT BETWEEN THE BUILDER A ND THE ULTIMATE PURCHASER OF THE FLATS. THE ASSESSEE HAS P ARTED WITH SOME PART OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE BUILD ER FROM ALLURING THE PURCHASER SO THAT IT CAN EARN MORE COM MISSION. IT IS JUST PROVIDING A DISCOUNT TO THE PURCHASER AND N OT PAYING ANY COMMISSION FOR ANY SERVICES TAKEN FROM SUCH CUSTOME RS. IT APPEARS THAT LD. AO WAS INFLUENCED BY THE NOMENCLAT URE OF THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FAILED TO DISTINGUISH WHAT CHARACTER SUCH RECEIPT WOULD ATTAIN WHEN IT WI LL BE OFFERED TO THE CUSTOMER. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE PURCHASER OF THE FLAT IS OF BUYER AND SELLER. THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE CONTROVERSY IN RIGHT 6 PERSPECTIVE AND WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE IN HIS ORDER. 3.2. WE MAY MENTION THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER, UPHOLDING THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE, HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED B Y THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 RENDERED IN ITA NO. 4449/ DEL/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 28-8-2014. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT. GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGES TH E DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,50,970/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMI SSION PAID TO SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA U/S 40A(2)(B). 4.1. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS THIS ISSUE, ARE THAT ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,95,471/- UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSIO N. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO VARI OUS PARTIES FOR PROCURING PRE-LAUNCH BOOKING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEES REPLY H AS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 4.2 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, GAVE DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID AND ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE RUNNING COMMISSI ON ACCOUNT CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID PARTY-WISE, DESCRIBING T HEIR ADDRESS AND PAN NO. PHOTOCOPIES OF THEIR INVOICES AND IDENTITY PROOF IN THE SHAPE OF PAN, PASSPORT, VOTER ID CARD ETC. ALONG WITH LIST OF BOO KINGS PROJECT WISE REFLECTING THEIR APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO FILED ALON G WITH THE REPLY. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TDS HAD ALSO BEEN DEDU CTED AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT A SUM OF RS. 5,50 ,970/- WAS PAID TO GAURAV MUKHIJA, WHO WAS HAVING HIS INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS AND ALSO GAVE BUSINESS TO 7 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT GAURAV MUKHIJA WAS A DIPLOMA HOLDER IN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT AND HE LOOKED AFTE R GURGAON OFFICE. A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GURU GOBIND INDRAPRASTHA UNIV ERSITY TO SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA WAS ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DIPLOMA HOLDER IN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT. HOWEVER, ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA HAD UNDERGONE A CERTIFICA TE PROGRAMME ONLY IN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 5,50,970/- OUT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,95,471/- PAID TO SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) ON THE GROUND THAT SHRI GAURAV M UKHIJA WAS SON OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4.2. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD, INTER ALIA , SUBMITTED THAT, KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF ORIGIN AL BOOKINGS OF LAUNCHED PROJECTS, IT WAS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSO N TO BOOK THE PROJECT ON HIS OWN WITHOUT THE HELP OF OTHERS. THEREFORE, THE SER VICE OF OTHERS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED THE OFFICE ON VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND FOR THE SAID PURPOSE EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MA NAGE THERE OR IT HAD TO BE MANAGED BY ENGAGING SOME OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSE E ALLOWED REMUNERATION TO SUCH PERSONS ON COMMISSION BASIS, O N THE BASIS OF THEIR PERFORMANCE BY WAY OF BOOKINGS. IT WAS FURTHER POIN TED OUT THAT SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA CONTROLLED AND MANAGED THE GURGAON OFFICE O F THE COMPANY AND THE COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED TO HIM ON THE BASIS OF PROCU REMENT OF THE PRE- LAUNCHED BOOKINGS WHEREIN THE GURGAON OFFICE WAS IN STRUMENTAL. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED THAT SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA WAS HAVING MOBILE NO. 9810531773 AND THIS MOBILE NUMBER WAS ALSO FLASHED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN NEWS PAPERS FOR GENERAL P UBLIC AT LARGE INFORMING THE BOOKINGS, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA WAS CLOSELY 8 ASSOCIATED AS A RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND WAS INSTRUME NTAL IN BOOKING THE PROPERTIES BY SATISFYING CUSTOMERS AT LARGE. 4.3. LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-0 8 ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4.4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE SERVICES RENDERED BY SHRI GAURAV MUKHIJA AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY BRINGING ANY CONT RARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON T HE ISSUE IN QUESTION. GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL AND THE SOLE GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN REST RICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% AS AGAINST 20% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. 5.1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS. 7,88,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OF FICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES A ND FURNISH COMPLETE PARTICULARS AND EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE ACTUALL Y INCURRED AND PAYMENT MADE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAIL S VIDE REPLY DATED 9-12- 2011. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES. IN APPEAL LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED T HE DISALLOWANCE TO 10%. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE PART IES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THEIR RESPECTIVE GRIEVANCE. 9 5.2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CO NTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08, REND ERED IN ITA NO. 4554/DEL/10 VIDE ORDER DATED 27-5-2011, DELETING TH E ADDITION IN QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NO DISALLOWANCE DESERVED TO BE MADE. 5.3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 5.4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN A.Y. 2007-08 THE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES BY OBSERVING A S UNDER: 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, M/S SURNDER P ROPERTIES IS IN THE EXISTENCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS EVEN BEFORE T HE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THE NAME OF SURNDER MUKHIJA IN A WAY ENH ANCED THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABL E ON RECORD TO THIS EFFECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF T HE ASSTT. ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURENDER MUKHIJA. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSTT. ORDER, WE FIND THAT SHRI SURENDER MUKHIJA HAD INCURRED A SUM OF ` 20,39,479/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT AND THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APPEARING IN HIS ADVERTISEMENT. THUS IN A WAY, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FAI RLY COMPENSATED, THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY BOTH THE CONCERNS MUTUALLY GIV E BENEFIT TO EACH OTHER MUTUALLY. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE TERMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXTENDED UNDUE BENEFIT TO THIRD CONCERN BY GIVING ITS NAME IN THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND N O DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE MADE . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF AS SESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELE TED. 5.5. LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINCTION IN FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION SO AS TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THEREFORE, RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE 10 EARLIER ORDER OF THE ITAT WE DELETE THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. ACCOR DINGLY, GROUND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED AND THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/14. SD/- SD/- ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 05-09-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR