Section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of CIT, challenging the disallowance of business expenditure on publicity amounting to 13,37,691/-.

Held that—This question is answered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (supra) in favor of the assessee.
Considering the nature of business of assessee and that expenses in question were incurred for earning business income, therefore, it was not capital in nature and would not provide any enduring benefit to the assessee. The assessee submitted before A.O. that income on this account has been accounted for during the year itself. The submissions of assessee has not been disputed by the authorities below. Therefore, on the same Head when income is offered for taxation and expenses are incurred to earn the income, therefore, such expenses were clearly revenue in nature.

The authorities below have failed to point-out as to which capital have been generated out of incurring these expenses. Therefore, the authorities below were not justified to sustain the addition. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition.[TIMES PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-25 (2) , NEW DELHI.] [2018] 8 ITCD Online (27) [ ITAT DELHI]