Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Service Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0426-76]

Citation 2019-LL-0426-76
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6
Respondent Name Matrix Cellular International Service Pvt. Ltd.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/04/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags advertisement expenditure • revenue expenditure
Bot Summary: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Delay condoned. The learned Additional Solicitor General has addressed submissions to challenge the correctness of the Signature Not Verified findings of the High Court on the issue of advertisement Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.04.27 11:09:29 IST Reason: expenses. The High Court has adverted to two circumstances, while upholding the decision of the 2 Tribunal: firstly, for the previous Assessment Year 2008- 2009, the same view of the Tribunal regarding the allowability of advertisement expenditure as revenue expenditure has not been challenged; secondly, the High Court has adverted to its own decision in the case of CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings India Ltd.1 The learned Additional Solicitor General attempted to distinguish the decision on the ground that it dealt with advertisements on hoardings. We find no substance in that distinction In our considered view, the view which has been taken by the Tribunal and, sustained by the High Court, does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.


1 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).19777/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-08-2017 in ITA No. 484/2017 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL SERVICE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Respondent(s) (WITH I.R. and IA No.80475/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 26-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Adv. Ms. Shruti Raina, Adv. Mr. Shahab Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, Adv. Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Delay condoned. learned Additional Solicitor General has addressed submissions to challenge correctness of Signature Not Verified findings of High Court on issue of advertisement Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.04.27 11:09:29 IST Reason: expenses. High Court has adverted to two circumstances, while upholding decision of 2 Tribunal: firstly, for previous Assessment Year 2008- 2009, same view of Tribunal regarding allowability of advertisement expenditure as revenue expenditure has not been challenged; secondly, High Court has adverted to its own decision in case of CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings India (P) Ltd.1 learned Additional Solicitor General attempted to distinguish decision on ground that it dealt with advertisements on hoardings. We find no substance in that distinction In our considered view, view which has been taken by Tribunal and, sustained by High Court, does not call for interference under Article 136 of Constitution. Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER 1 207 Taxman 5 (Del.) Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Service Pvt. Ltd
Report Error