Expenses w.r.t Promotion for Brand ‘Snapdeal’ are Revenue in Nature

Expenses w.r.t Promotion for Brand 'Snapdeal' are Revenue in Nature

CA Bimal Jain | Jan 28, 2022 |

Expenses w.r.t Promotion for Brand ‘Snapdeal’ are Revenue in Nature

Expenses w.r.t Promotion for Brand ‘Snapdeal’ are Revenue in Nature

The Hon’ble Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/S Jasper Infotech Private Limited [ITA No 2605/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) dated November 10, 2021] held that expenses involved for promotion of a brand ‘Snapdeal’ is purely revenue in nature in absence of any contrary evidence.

Facts:

M/s. Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (“the Respondent”) is an organization occupied with the business of advertising services under the brand name of ‘Snapdeal’ in India. The brand filed its return claiming a loss. This return was gotten for investigation.

Throughout the course of assessment procedures, the Commissioner of Income tax (“Assessing Officer”) noticed that the Respondent has asserted expenditure by virtue of commercial advertisements, publicity and business advancement. The Respondent guaranteed it as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenses are not revenue expenditure, but rather are brought about for procurement of intangible resources being capital expenditures as those are expenses made in the early stages of the business and such expenditures were made for the benefit of the Respondent.

The Assessing Officer held that the Respondent has fabricated a showcasing net-work in India and it demonstrates engagement with making, promoting intangibles without which the Respondent organization would not have been a market rival in that segment. He held that by bringing about this expenses the Respondent significantly benefited in making ‘Snapdeal’ brand and, subsequently, this use has given befitting advantage to the Respondent.

Accordingly, Assessing Officer treated half of the above expenses as capital expenditure and disallowed an aggregate. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Income Tax Act”) was passed deciding absolute loss of the Respondent.

Being aggrieved the Respondent preferred an appeal before CIT(Appeals) who deleted the above additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue:

Whether expenses incurred during advertisement, business promotion, publicity of the brand ‘Snapdeal’ will be termed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No 2605/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) dated November 10, 2021 held as under:

  • Noted that the Respondent is operating in online marketing business as aggregator which is a highly competent consumer market the Respondent had to stay ahead of its competition and thus engage itself in brand promotional activities and has necessarily to incur these expenses.
  • Stated that the Assessing Officer having accepted the fact that the Respondent could spend amounts for these activities to the extent of 50% as revenue expenditure the Assessing Officer could not have held that 50% of such expenses are capital in nature, in absence of any contrary evidence.
  • Further, the Assessing Officer didn’t furnish any record or proof to show that the Respondent has created any intangible asset and even after the details of expenses are placed before the Assessing Officer, he held that ad-hoc percentage of certain expenditure are capital expenditure without pointing out that which nature of expenditure has resulted into creating an intangible asset.
  • Held that the expenses involved are purely revenue in nature and can’t be considered as capital expenditure.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

To Read the Judgment Download PDF Given Below :

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
Actions taken by the department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment Who are liable to generate e-invoice w.e.f October 1, 2022 Personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company for failure in ensuring proper accounting of the goods Stayed the order of cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee for continuing the trading activities Can CA be arrested- Section 69 vs Section 132 of the CGST ActView All Posts