PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/S MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL SERVICE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) The learned Additional Solicitor General has addressed submissions to challenge the correctness of the findings of the High Court on the issue of advertisement expenses. The High Court has adverted to two circumstances, while upholding the decision of the 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 vs. Pepsico India Holdings India (P) Ltd., 207 Taxman 5 (Del.). 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

(3.) 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.