JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Sanjiv Khanna J.-The present appeal by Revenue relates to assessment year 2009-10 and impugns order dated February 21, 2014. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" in short) has followed its own decision for assessment year 2008-09, wherein, following observations were made: "8. We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record. On careful consideration of peculiar facts and circumstances of case and legal decision on issue involved, we are of view that there is no infirmity in order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). perusal of assessment order shows that no basis for concluding that 25 per cent. of expenditure on account of advertisement and marketing expenses should be disallowed has been set out which is fact which prevailed with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to upset finding in assessment order as having based on no facts admitted position is that this was first year of operation of assessee wherein with effect from April 9, 2009, assessee substituted word'hot spot' for word'spice'. As such assessee undertook schemes of sales promotion and advertisement in printing and electronic media assessee was in business of selling mobile hand sets and other electronic items and accessories admittedly operates in highly competitive market wherein specific brand was necessarily to be advertised and made known to public at large factum of incurring expenditure of sales promotion schemes advertisement of its products in newspapers, electronic media, neon signs and banners, etc., have not been dated. In these facts it is admitted position that expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for business of assessee and is not capital expenditure nor personal expense. No reasoning or basis has been given by Assessing Officer to disallow 25 per cent. of expenses claimed as if expenditure is capital in nature then depreciation should have been allowed and if expense is being treated as deferred revenue expenditure then it is contrary to settled legal position. In facts as they stand expenses incurred for brand building exercise of Spice brand has rightly been allowed as revenue expenditure by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relying upon order of Tribunal in group companies case, namely, ITO v. Spice Communications Ltd. [2010] 35 SOT 75 (Delhi), we carefully in concurrence with finding of co-ordinate Bench as advertisement, etc., cannot be said to be capital asset. Similarly, putting hoardings, neon signs, etc., cannot be said to have led to creation of any capital asset. We find support from judgment of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi) wherein considering advertising expenditure of approximately Rs. 3.08 crores conclusion of Tribunal, namely, that there was direct nexus between advertisement expenditure and business of assessee and that assessee had to incur such expenditure to meet competition in Indian market for selling its products in India was upheld. In facts of present case also it is imperative that unless assessee made its products known to market its business would suffer. judgment of apex court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) which has considered that there could be cases where expenditure even if it was incurred for obtaining benefit of enduring nature may nevertheless be on revenue account in which case test of enduring benefit would break down fully supports view taken. Similarly, jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Casio India Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 196 (Delhi) referred to bunch of appeals with lead case being ITA No. 1820 of 2010 entitled CIT v. City Financial Consumers Fin. Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) had held that expenditure on advertising and sales promotion is to be treated as business expenditure under section 37 of Act. jurisdictional High Court therein considering appeal of Revenue in regard to claim of assessee before Assessing Officer pertaining to expenditure of Rs. 4.18 lakhs for advertising and sales promotion wherein Assessing Officer had relied upon judgment of apex court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) upheld order of Tribunal which had confirmed order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had held that there is no concept for deferred revenue expenditure in Income-tax Act, 1961. Similar view was taken by jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. in I. T. A. 319 of 2010 rendered on March 30, 2011, copy of which is placed at pages 155 to 172. Accordingly, for reasons given hereinabove being satisfied with reasoning and finding arrived at in impugned order Departmental ground is dismissed. In view of fact that finding in impugned order is confirmed C.O. filed by assessee is infructuous and is dismissed as such." learned senior standing counsel states that she does not have any instructions and cannot state whether Revenue has preferred appeal against findings recorded by Tribunal in respondent-assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09. We have examined aforesaid reasoning given by Tribunal and find same to be meritorious and deserves affirmation. respondentassessee was engaged in service of trading of mobile handsets, its accessories and mobile repairing. For purpose of business, it had incurred expenditure of Rs. 11,51,40,004 on advertisement. Assessing Officer treated said expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure and 25 per cent. of said amount, i.e., Rs. 2,87,85,001 was allowed in year, observing that balance amount would be allowed in next three years. He also directed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" in short) on account of said addition. Tribunal has rightly noticed and referred to decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. in I. T. A. No. 319 of 2010, decided on March 30, 2011 wherein, judgment of Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) was examined and it was observed that assessee is entitled to claim deferred revenue expenditure but Assessing Officer cannot treat revenue expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure. reason is that Act itself does not have any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. Even otherwise, there are number of decisions that advertisement expenditure normally is and should be treated as revenue in nature because advertisements do not have long lasting effect and once advertisements stop, effect thereof on general public and customer diminishes and vanished soon thereafter. Advertisements do not leave long lasting and permanent effect in sense that product or service has to be repeatedly advertised. Even otherwise advertisement expense is day to day expense incurred for running business and improving sales. It is noticeable that every year, respondent- assessee has been incurring substantial expenditure on advertisements. Assessing Officer, in assessment order, had referred to fact that similar additions were also made in assessment year 2008-09. Keeping in view nature and character of respondent-assessee's business, every year expenditure has to be incurred to make and keep public informed, aware and remain in limelight. This requires continuous and repeated publicity and advertisements to remain in public eye, to do business by attracting customers. It is expenditure of trading nature. aforesaid aspect has been highlighted by Delhi High Court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi) and CIT v. Casio India Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 196 (Delhi). In view of aforesaid, we do not think, impugned order of Tribunal calls for interference. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Spice Distribution Ltd