IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.-518/Del/2017 [In ITA No.1509/Del/2014] [Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/s. Bose Corporation India Pvt.Ltd., Salcon Aurum, 3 rd Floor, Plot No.4, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025. PAN-AAACB3260A vs ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent by Shri Girish Kumar Kohli, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) is filed by the applicant seeking recalling of the order dated 30.03.2017 in ITA Nos.1509 & 2523/Del/2014 passed by the Tribunal for the Assessment year (“AY”) 2009-10. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in M.A. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate Ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee. It was further contended that on the similar issue, the Tribunal had allowed relief to the assessee for AY 2003-04. Similarly for the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, the relief was also granted to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that Ground Nos. 4 & 5 were not adjudicated by the Tribunal. 2 | Page 3. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and submitted that there is no error in the order dated 30.03.2017 in ITA Nos.1509 & 2523/Del/2014, passed by the Tribunal for the AY 2009-10. 4. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had taken Ground Nos.4 & 5 as under:- “Ground No. 4 : That the Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP) erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 6,10,91,813 (being 4/5th of the total expenditure) paid towards advertisement charges by treating the same as deferred revenue expenditure. 4.1 That the Ld. AO has made the addition in an arbitrary manner by merely stating that whole of the expenditure incurred for advertising products through media in India cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure in one year itself; 4.2 That the Ld. AO relying on the Apex Court’s decision which was rendered in a different context erred in alleging that the benefit of incurring such expenditure is stretched over a number of years and accordingly the expenditure needs to be amortized over a number of years; 4.3 That the action of the Ld. AO shall result in double whammy on the appellant as an addition has already been made on AMP expenditure by the Ld. TPO; Ground No. 5 : Without prejudice to the appellant's contention in ground no.4 above, the Ld. AO erred in not providing a deduction of i/5th of the advertisement expenses pertaining to the preceding years in assessing the income for the year under consideration.” 5. However, while disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal inadvertently did not adjudicate the aforesaid Ground Nos. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee. Therefore, the order dated 30.03.2017 in ITA Nos.1509 & 2523/Del/2014 for 3 | Page AY 2009-10 is hereby, recalled for the limited purpose to adjudicate Ground Nos.4 & 5 in assessee’s appeal. The Registry is directed to fix this appeal for hearing in due course. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 13 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI